Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Time limits and extension of time

Legal area

Court

25 Feb 2026

SHAHZAD AHMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 965
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1455/2021

Leave was refused because the applications were brought substantially out of time with no explanation and lacked any realistic prospect of success: the Board had considered the evidence and COI and reasonably concluded low risk, availability of state protection and internal relocation; the applicant's late, unsupported new allegations did not alter the analysis and would not justify extension of time or leave.
20 Feb 2026

CHIANG LI WEI v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF ALHAMBRA BUILDING

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 569
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL142/2026

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law ground on the prescribed form, failed to make full and frank disclosure of the impugned decision, the dispute was essentially a private law matter not amenable to judicial review, and the application was time-barred (filed more than three years after the impugned judgment) with no satisfactory explanation for delay.
8 Jan 2026

MAHBOOB MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 101
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2474/2020

The TCAB applied the correct legal principles, made permissible adverse credibility findings based on the record (including the applicant's non-attendance and inconsistent statements), and there was no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the leave application was also out of time with no explanation, so leave is refused and no extension granted.
9 Oct 2025

ANSAR HOSSAIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4638
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1864/2020

The application for leave was dismissed because it was plainly out of time with no extension sought and, on merits, the TCAB decision demonstrated no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality such that judicial review or an extension of time would be justified.
22 Jul 2025

USMAN MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2961
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL320/2020

The leave application is dismissed because it was filed out of time without explanation and, on the merits, the Board's Decision of 27 December 2018 contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting review; misdescription of the adjudicator's capacity was immaterial as she was a Board member with power to decide.
20 Jul 2023

CHOW KIN HANG ALI v. PRESUMED THE HEAD OF THE WORKING PARTY FOR CJR & PD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1815
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1107/2023

The application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law error in the Civil Justice Reform or Practice Direction SL1.2, the Court of Appeal's refusal in CAMP 126/2022 was not based on CJR/PD but on delay and lack of merit, the police affirmation on absence of recordings was properly accepted, and the challenge was an out of time, misconceived collateral attack and abuse of process.
7 Aug 2020

USMAN YUMIATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1932
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL285/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Form 86 was filed out of time with no explanation and there were no reasonably arguable grounds of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or unfairness in the Adjudicator's Decision, such that there was no realistic prospect of success to justify an extension of time or grant of leave.
8 Oct 2019

AWAL MOHAMMAD RABIUL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1108
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP224/2019

The summons was dismissed because the applicant failed to comply with the Registrar's direction to file a notice of appeal, the appeal period expired, and there was no application or material showing entitlement to seek extension of time directly in the Court of Appeal.
21 Nov 2018

RE SHARIFUL ISLAM

Citation

[2018] HKCA 820
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV414/2018

The Court refused leave under section 14AA because the applicant's second leave application was filed out of time, the delay was unexplained, the application constituted an abuse of the court process, the applicant had not first obtained leave to appeal in accordance with the rules and authorities, and therefore the Notice of Appeal was struck out and the appeal dismissed.
29 Aug 2005

ARNOLD IP TIN CHEE v. CHING HING CONSTRUCTION CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

ARNOLD IP TIN CHEE v. CHING HING CONSTRUCTION CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV26/2005

Section 24 requires filing a notice of motion for leave within 28 days of the judgment to be appealed from and, where leave is refused by the Court of Appeal, a further 28-day limit applies; the additional period is not an alternative to the original filing requirement. Although the court may extend time, extension was refused here because the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospects of reversing the concurrent findings of fact that there was no gift to the deceased, so extension and leave were refused.