Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Time limits for appeals

Legal area

Court

20 May 2026

SUPARDI ENDANG SUPRIYANI BT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2347
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1113/2022

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision and failed to show she exercised all due diligence or that the delay was due to circumstances beyond her control as required by the Immigration Ordinance; the Board correctly applied statutory presumptions and its reasoning was adequate, so there was no realistic prospect of success for judicial review.
22 Apr 2026

KHAN RAJA QAISAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2142
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL333/2021

The summons was dismissed because the applicant offered no valid excuse for the delay and failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law or a reasonable prospect of success on the intended judicial review; accordingly no extension of time was granted.
1 Apr 2026

JOENALYN COLLANTES VILLANUEVA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1830
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL418/2026

The application for leave was dismissed because the notice of appeal was filed over ten months late, the applicant's explanation for the delay was unreasonable, and under the revised s37TZ the Board had no discretion to extend time; there was no reasonable prospect of success for judicial review.
1 Aug 2024

THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG v. JIM YIU MING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCA 740
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP366/2023

The Court held that applications for leave to appeal under section 13(2A) LPO are to be made to the Court of Appeal and are not subject to the 21-day time limit in s13(1) LPO nor to the 14-day limit in Order 59 r2B(1) (which applies to applications to the court which made the order). There is no statutory time limit for such leave applications to the Court of Appeal; accordingly no extension of time was required for making the leave application. The Court granted leave because it was reasonably arguable that the SDT sentences were inadequate, and extended time for service and filing of the no…
29 Apr 2024

TRAN DINH NAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1179
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL84/2024

The application for extension of time and leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the delay (over ten months) is inordinate, the applicant's explanations are incredible and unsupported, and the Board lawfully and reasonably applied the Begum principles and statutory requirements in finding no good reason to allow late filing; there is no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality to support leave.
6 Mar 2024

有關NGUYEN VAN ANH及另一人的事宜

Citation

[2024] HKCA 199
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV403/2022

The Court refused leave to appeal because the applicants failed to demonstrate any arguable error in the Court of Appeal's decision and failed to show that the proposed appeal involved questions of general or public importance as required by s22(1)(b) of Cap 484; consequently the leave application had no real prospect of success.
5 Aug 2022

RE TEJEDOR SERNA JORGE ANDRES

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2461
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL423/2019

Extension of time refused because, although applicant's address error and delay were accepted and he acted promptly once aware, there was no real prospect of success in the intended appeal since no arguable grounds of judicial review were shown and it would not be in the interests of justice to extend time.
16 Feb 2022

HOANG TRONG GIANG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 453
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1648/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Director's 1 November 2021 notice is governed by an established statutory appeal regime to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (with a 14‑day filing period) and therefore is not properly the subject of immediate judicial review; additionally the purported Board decision dated the same day did not exist, so there was no Board decision before the court to review.
4 Jun 2021

HUI TANG TAT（許騰達)［in the Will called HUI TANT TAT（許騰達）］，the Executor of the Estate of PAO SHUN HING（鮑舜卿）also known as PAO SHUN HING（鮑舜卿），Deceased 對 HUI TING BONG（許定邦）及另一人

Citation

[2021] HKCA 777
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP211/2020

Because a bankruptcy order vests the bankrupt's litigation rights in the Official Receiver and the Official Receiver refused to continue or assign the litigation rights, the bankrupt (second defendant) lacked standing to pursue the appeal; coupled with the failure to obtain the statutory leave within the 14‑day period required by the Regional Court rules, the summons filed 13 November 2020 must be struck out.
9 Feb 2021

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

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 267
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL28/2019

Extension of time for the out-of-time leave application was refused and leave dismissed because the applicant failed to give a credible, timely explanation for delay, the merits did not justify reopening the case given the applicant's conduct and the reasonable outcome of the Director's risk assessments, and granting leave after substantial unexplained delay would be detrimental to good administration.