Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Compliance with practice directions

Legal area

Court

26 Sept 2025

曹雯娟小姐 v. 馬惠屏小姐 AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCA 868
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP217/2024

Leave to appeal refused because the plaintiff failed to show any good or justifiable reason for absence at the case management conference as required by Order 25 r4, therefore there was no reasonable prospect of success under s63A(2) DCO; moreover many filings were non-compliant with Practice Direction 4.1 and RCA directions and the application constituted an abuse of process, so the summons is dismissed and no leave is granted.
12 Sept 2025

MALLARE LAURO MAGBITANG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCA 828
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV160/2024

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance required by s22(1)(b) and failed to comply with the Registrar's direction to file written submissions, permitting determination on paper and dismissal of the Notice of Motion.
31 Jul 2024

郭文英對連秋興先生及其他人

Citation

[2024] HKCA 743
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP92/2024

The application for extension of time to seek leave to appeal was refused because the applicant's explanation for delay was inadequate, the proposed grounds of appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success and largely repeated previously rejected arguments, and there were no reasons of public justice to permit an out‑of‑time appeal; accordingly the originating summons was dismissed and costs were ordered against the applicant.
8 Mar 2024

劉祖榮對陳淑惠

Citation

[2024] HKCA 210
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV288/2023

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant's pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action or were barred by limitation or constituted an abuse of process; any procedural non-compliance (timing/method of service or absence of an affidavit) did not cause prejudice sufficient to overturn the strike-out; and the costs assessment at HKD33,150 was within the court's discretion and not demonstrably wrong.
15 Mar 2022

RE GLORIA DUMARAN JAMERO

Citation

[2022] HKCA 428
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV452/2020

The notice of motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap.484, there was no basis under the 'or otherwise' limb, procedural non‑compliance and absence of skeleton submissions undermined the application, and the applicant had requested dismissal of her own motion.
3 Mar 2022

AYUB MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2022] HKCA 312
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV110/2021

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant sought to raise new grounds at a late stage, failed to comply with court directions (resulting in deemed abandonment of written submissions), offered only bare assertions without particulars or evidence, and failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b), so there was no proper basis to grant leave.
27 Jan 2022

RE GURPREET SINGH

Citation

[2022] HKCA 154
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP118/2021

The Notice of Motion was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance as required by s22(1)(b) HKCFAO and failed to comply with Practice Direction 2.1; his assertions were general, vague and unsupported and therefore did not establish grounds for leave to appeal.
11 Jan 2022

RE DWI SURYANI SAFITRI

Citation

[2022] HKCA 54
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP150/2019

The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, failed to comply with Practice Direction 2.1, and failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) Cap 484; accordingly the matters raised are not reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.
6 Dec 2021

RE HAQUE AZIZUL

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1814
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP218/2019

The motion for leave to appeal out of time was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, failed to comply with Practice Direction 2.1, and failed to identify any question of great general or public importance or any arguable error as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.
24 Sept 2021

RE SHERPA PEMBA

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1380
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP147/2020

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was properly refused because the applicant failed to identify a question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484, advanced grounds that were vague, lacked particulars and were improperly directed at the Director rather than at errors by the judge, and failed to comply with Practice Direction 2.1; consequently the Notice of Motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.