Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Undue delay and extension of time

Legal area

Court

8 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1618
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1391/2020

The application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the Form 86 contained no reasonably arguable grounds, the TCAB/NRCPO and NRCPO decisions showed no public law error or procedural unfairness, the Director's decisions were not susceptible to review after appeal, and the application in respect of the TCAB decision was unduly delayed with no good reason to extend time; the court corrected the Form 86 date administratively.
6 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 447
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL623/2021

The leave application was dismissed because it was grossly out of time (approximately 1.5 years) without adequate written explanation, the proposed grounds were not reasonably arguable or had no realistic prospect of success given the TCAB's credibility and merits findings, and granting an extension would prejudice the refoulement process and be detrimental to good administration.
31 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6387
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1355/2020

The court dismissed the leave application because the Form 86 and supporting affirmation failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds of judicial review, the application was filed well outside the statutory three-month period with no good reason to extend time, and the TCAB/NRCPO decision was not shown to contain any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality sufficient to vitiate it; accordingly extension of time was refused and leave denied.
6 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4365
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL576/2020

The application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground of public law error that would vitiate the TCAB decision, the COI authorship allegation and additional documents were unsubstantiated and inadmissible, and there was no acceptable explanation for the undue delay of over 22 months so as to justify an extension of time.
19 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4366
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL865/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the application was unduly delayed with no good reason to extend time, the pleaded complaints failed the arguability/realistic prospect threshold or were non-justiciable (including that Director's decisions were not reviewable after appeal), the NRCPO correctly applied the statutory regime for late filing and the substantive case (BOR 2 risk) was implausible and unsupported by evidence, such that there was no realistic prospect of relief.
10 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4038
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL629/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the application was filed out of time with no explanation for delay, the Form 86 did not identify any reasonably arguable ground of review, and rigorous scrutiny of the TCAB/NRCPO decision disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality sufficient to vitiate that decision; therefore no realistic prospect of success justified granting leave or extending time.
5 Sept 2025

ZANGO MICHEL MENESES AFONSO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3852
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL554/2020

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide any credible reason to extend time for a five-day delay and did not identify any reasonably arguable grounds of judicial review; the TCAB/NRCPO made lawful credibility and risk assessments within its primary province and no procedural unfairness, error of law or irrationality sufficient to vitiate the decision was shown, so leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
2 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3741
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL820/2020

Leave was refused and extension of time denied because the delay (just over seven months) was substantial, the applicant's explanation for delay was not credible or supported by evidence, she failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds of judicial review, and the TCAB/NRCPO's decision withstood enhanced scrutiny on credibility and risk assessments; therefore there was no good reason to extend time or grant leave.
21 Aug 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3623
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL656/2020

The leave application is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify reasonably arguable and particularised public law grounds that would vitiate the TCAB/NRCPO decision; the TCAB/NRCPO gave adequate reasons and its factfinding on risk, state protection and internal relocation fell within its primary remit; the applicant's grounds were generic, vague and merit‑based not public law errors; and there was no good reason to extend time for the out-of-time application.