Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delay and condonation

Legal area

Court

12 Sept 2025

YESI KRISTINA AYU INDRASWARI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4094
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2218/2023

The application for extension of time was refused because the delay (one month and twenty-four days against a 14‑day appeal period) was substantial and the applicant failed to provide a credible, evidenced explanation or to comply with directions to file particulars and grounds, thereby demonstrating no arguable prospect and no will to prosecute the appeal; under the established four‑factor test the court declined to exercise its discretion to extend time.
27 May 2022

RE SUMON NUMAN

Citation

[2022] HKCA 736
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP252/2021

Extension of time refused because the delay was substantial, the applicant offered no reliable explanation or evidence for the delay, the intended appeal disclosed no realistic prospect of success as the Board's decision contained no identifiable legal error or procedural unfairness, and therefore granting an extension would be futile.
25 Feb 2022

RE ALI MOHAMMED RASHID

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 514
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1492/2018

Extension of time refused because the applicant admitted the late application but gave no satisfactory explanation despite directions to explain; the intended appeal solely attacked Board's factual findings (risk if refouled) which has no prospect of success on judicial review; the application was therefore an abuse of process and would prejudice the respondent and public administration.
15 Oct 1996

PANG HON WAH and Others v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

PANG HON WAH and Others v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1232/1996

The application by the Attorney General to set aside the leave granted was refused: the applicants demonstrated a good reason for extension (their reliance on the outcome in Cheung's case), there was no deliberate material non-disclosure warranting setting aside, prejudice and detriment to good administration were not established, and justice required allowing the substantive challenge to proceed to investigate possible systemic departmental practices that bore on culpability.

Hong Kong Case Law

YESI KRISTINA AYU INDRASWARI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

RE SUMON NUMAN

RE ALI MOHAMMED RASHID

PANG HON WAH and Others v. ATTORNEY GENERAL