Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Time limits and delay

Legal area

Court

20 Feb 2026

SIDDIQUE AAMIR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1058
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL149/2021

Leave was granted because the applicant demonstrated an arguable case that Officer YIU committed errors of law and irrationality by improperly discounting hearsay without adequate contextual assessment, failing to apply the low standard of proof appropriate to non‑refoulement claims and failing to give adequate reasons, such that the proposed judicial review has a real prospect of success.
28 Nov 2025

SHOMAN ABU ZAFOR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCA 983
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP12/2025

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the intended appeal raised a question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) Cap 484 or any real prospects of success, and because the Notice of Motion was filed more than 28 days after the judgment in breach of section 24 of Cap 484 with no explanation; accordingly leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused and the motion dismissed.
4 Jun 2025

TUNG LAI LAM 對高勁修法官 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2415
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1206/2025

The application for permission for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to particularize coherent arguable grounds in Form 86, several challenged decisions were plainly out of time under Order 53 r4 with no justification for extension, the pleaded material was disorganized and unsupported by objective evidence, and the remaining complaints concerned case‑management decisions that did not disclose public‑law error; accordingly the application had no real prospect of success.
11 Apr 2025

TSE SAI KIT AND ANOTHER v. THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1447
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1256/2024

Substitution refused because the proposed substitute (Ms Chan) failed to demonstrate the requisite sufficiency and specificity of identity of interest with the original Applicant and did not provide an adequate explanation for the delay; refusal of legal aid and the alleged harassment were insufficient to justify permitting a late substitution that would undermine the strict time limits and finality of public law challenges.
22 Nov 2024

BAL TAMANG CHANDRA BAHADUR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3227
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1335/2020

Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant's nine‑month delay was substantial, his explanations were implausible and inconsistent with reliable postal delivery and his conduct, he had a prior pattern of non-compliance, and his intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success; accordingly granting an extension would amount to abuse of process and there was no basis to depart from the established legal test and relevant precedents.
17 Nov 2022

吳玫蓉 v. 王淑芬 AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3423
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1195/2022

Both leave applications were refused because the complaints about the insurance policies were private law matters unsuitable for judicial review, and the challenge to the LAA Decision was time-barred and plainly unarguable; no extension of time was sought and no reasonably arguable public law grounds were shown.
16 May 2022

陳嘉琪 v. 律政司司長 AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1396
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL313/2022

The application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify proper grounds, the challenge was time‑barred by delay beyond the three‑month rule, and the proceedings constituted a collateral attack on earlier decisions thereby amounting to an abuse of process.
6 Jul 2021

ARALIYA KANKANAMGE NADEEP SURANGA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMNT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1949
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL867/2019

The application was dismissed because the 25 February 2019 letter was not a decision susceptible to judicial review and, insofar as the applicant intended to challenge the Director's Notice dated 13 October 2017, the application was time‑barred by one year and two months with no valid explanation or arguable merits to justify extension; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
23 Apr 2020

RE MASRUROH IMAS AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCA 229
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP162/2019

The Court refused to extend time because the applicants' proposed judicial review grounds were vague, unparticularised and had no reasonable prospect of success; the applicants failed to identify any error by the judge and impermissibly sought to raise new grounds on appeal, therefore extension for a hopeless appeal was refused.
9 May 2019

SUNEVISION HOLDINGS LTD v. HONG KONG SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PARKS CORPORATION

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1253
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1890/2018

The court refused leave to amend to add a challenge to the plot ratio decision because that substantive decision was made in November 2016, was time‑barred from the amendment sought, no fresh leave had been granted, the proposed attack lacked sufficient prospect of success and the remedies sought would be ineffective; limited amendments touching on disclosed agreements and the approved pro forma services agreement were permitted for substantive hearing, but other proposed amendments were rejected.