Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Timeliness and extension of time

Legal area

Court

14 May 2026

NGUYEN VAN YEN HUNG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2707
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL723/2022

Leave to file out of time and leave to apply for judicial review were refused because the application was filed more than three months after the decision without any explanation for delay and the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success given that the Board lawfully and reasonably rejected the claim on credibility and merits and there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
30 Mar 2026

MURSITI KARMIJO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1862
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL711/2024

Leave was dismissed because the application was filed more than one year late without any satisfactory explanation, the applicant failed to identify arguable legal errors in the Director's or Board's decisions, those decisions were supported by findings on credibility, low risk, availability of state protection and internal relocation, and there was consequently no prospect of success.
20 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 627
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2469/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB Decision, the TCAB's findings on credibility and internal relocation were open to it on the evidence, the challenge was not reasonably arguable and the application was out of time with no acceptable explanation for delay; accordingly no extension of time was granted.
4 Feb 2026

LAI THI VIEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 294
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1130/2021

Leave was refused and the leave application dismissed because the TCAB/NRCPO's tier‑2 decision contained no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and the applicant filed Form 86 three months after the decision without any adequate explanation, so extension of time was refused.
19 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6145
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1397/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify arguable grounds or make full and frank disclosure in Form 86, failed to demonstrate any public law error in the Board's decision (which included adverse credibility findings and findings on state protection and internal relocation), and the application was filed about one year late with no explanation so no extension of time was granted.
17 Dec 2025

NGUYEN THI HUONG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6235
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1831/2020

The leave application is dismissed because it was filed out of time without explanation and, on merits, the Board's decision was lawful and free of errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and therefore the applicant had no reasonably arguable claim with realistic prospects of success.
19 Nov 2025

KABIR MD HUMAYUN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5599
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1256/2025

The application for leave was dismissed because it was filed out of time under Order 53 rule 4(1) without any application for extension and, on the merits, the Board's decision contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonably arguable claim with realistic prospects of success; fresh evidence not before the Board was not admissible and lack of legal representation did not establish unfairness warranting relief.
19 Nov 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5560
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1650/2020

The application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB's decision; the TCAB's adverse credibility and factual findings meant there was no factual basis for a BOR2 claim; the application was also brought out of time and no satisfactory explanation for delay was provided, so no extension was granted.
3 Nov 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5092
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1697/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB decision which had considered the evidence and applied correct legal principles; further, the application was out of time and no satisfactory explanation for the delay was provided so no extension of time was granted.
15 Jul 2025

MANDEEP SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2952
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL930/2020

The leave application was dismissed because it was filed substantially out of time without an acceptable explanation and because the intended judicial review disclosed no reasonably arguable grounds — the Board's decision involved credibility and fact‑finding within its primary domain and contained no errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.