Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Timeliness and delay

Legal area

Court

21 Feb 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 552
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1554/2023

The 2016 withdrawal was a deliberate and informed act and therefore final; the applicant’s excessive delay (nearly seven years) combined with lack of any realistic prospect of success justified refusal of leave to apply for judicial review of the 2016 Decision; the 2023 Notice refusing a subsequent claim contained no legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness and the proposed review had no realistic prospect of success; leave to amend the Form 86 to add the 2023 Decision was granted but leave to apply for judicial review and extension of time in respect of the 2016 Decision was refus…
2 May 2023

L v. GUARDIANSHIP BOARD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1180
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP976/2022

Leave to appeal was refused because the intended appeal was out of time and the appellant's explanation for delay was inadequate; on the merits the court found the Board had before it detailed social enquiry and medical reports, had given adequate reasons, and the Renewal Order was a rational decision in the best interests of the incapacitated person, so there was no basis for the court to intervene.
16 Nov 2012

KOON WING YEE v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

KOON WING YEE v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV245/2011

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal: it held it had no jurisdiction to stay or strike out the already registered IDT Order because registration under s.29 converted the Tribunal's Order into a Court of First Instance order, perfection had occurred and the residual discretion to reopen was not satisfied; the IDT's decision‑making did not amount to exercise of the HKSAR's judicial power under the Basic Law and the act of registration was an administrative act performed by the Registrar and thus subject to judicial review rather than being an exercise of judicial power by the IDT.
12 Oct 2010

KAM WING TRAVEL GROUP LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT

Citation

KAM WING TRAVEL GROUP LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV64/2010

The appeals were dismissed because the decisions under challenge were subject to review by the Transport Tribunal, which provides the appropriate statutory route; therefore the applicants must make a fresh application directed to review the Transport Tribunal decision rather than seek judicial review of the Commissioner's decision, notwithstanding potential difficulties from delay.
16 Feb 2007

RE MR MICHAEL CHARLES FLESCH QC

Citation

RE MR MICHAEL CHARLES FLESCH QC
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP279/2007

The application to admit Mr Flesch QC was refused because the application was made at a very late stage without any acceptable explanation; the public interest and fairness to other parties require timely applications and unexplained delay is fatal even where the applicant could otherwise make a significant contribution to the appeal.
23 Jun 2004

HKSAR v. CHAN BOON NING

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN BOON NING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC571/2001

The application for a certificate under s32 was dismissed because the notice of motion was filed eight months after the appeal dismissal and no adequate reason for the extensive delay was provided, therefore the court refused to grant the certificate.

Hong Kong Case Law

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

L v. GUARDIANSHIP BOARD AND ANOTHER

KOON WING YEE v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

KAM WING TRAVEL GROUP LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT

RE MR MICHAEL CHARLES FLESCH QC

HKSAR v. CHAN BOON NING