Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delay and excusal

Legal area

Court

25 Feb 2026

MANJINDER SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 898
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2306/2020

Extension refused because, despite the short four‑day delay, the applicant failed to provide a credible explanation; the order and decision had been posted to his last known address and not returned; the applicant filed no grounds for appeal so the intended appeal lacked bona fides; accordingly the court declined to exercise its discretion to extend time and dismissed the summons.
15 Jun 2023

HUSSAIN MUNIR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2023] HKCA 744
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP78/2023

The Court refused extension of time because the applicant's delay was inexcusable (unsupported assertion of non-receipt), and he failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable ground or real prospect of success on judicial review challenging the Director's and Board's assessment of non-refoulement risk; accordingly there was no basis to exercise discretion to extend time.
17 Apr 2023

YOUSAF WASEEM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 968
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL144/2019

Refused extension of time because the delay (almost six weeks) was substantial and inordinate, the applicant gave no adequate explanation, failed to provide any proper draft grounds or particulars of error, did not attend the hearing, and therefore there was no reasonable prospect of success making an extension futile.
12 Jan 2023

RE VI TRUNG TU

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 123
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1522/2018

Extension of time was refused because the delay of over 15 months was inordinate, the applicant failed to provide a true and valid explanation for the delay, failed to identify any arguable grounds or errors in the decision, and there was no prospect of success such that granting an extension would be futile.
30 Dec 2020

RE NURHAYATI

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 3124
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1924/2018

Extension of time refused because the applicant's explanation for delay was implausible and unacceptable, the delay was not excusable, and the intended appeal had no real prospect of success as there were no arguable errors of law or procedural unfairness in the Board's or Judge's decisions.
22 Nov 2019

RE IMBUH KARINA BINTI YAMRONI

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1294
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP61/2019

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant's delay in bringing the appeal was substantial and inexcusable, the intended appeal had no prospect of success, and the statutory threshold under section 22(1)(b) was not met nor was there a basis under the 'otherwise' limb.
12 Jun 2019

MOHAMED SHABDEEN MOHAMED GAZARI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1532
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL961/2017

Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay, the court file showed proper service to the address provided, and the intended appeal lacked any reasonable prospect of success because no arguable grounds against the refusal of leave could be identified; accordingly it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension.
19 Oct 2017

BAYNARD LTD 對 TAM PAK HO

Citation

BAYNARD LTD 對 TAM PAK HO
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4374/2016

The application for out-of-time permission to appeal was dismissed because the defendant's six-month delay was excessive and unjustified, he failed to provide acceptable reasons, the proposed grounds derived from the intervener lacked realistic prospects of success, granting leave would prejudice the plaintiff (possession already executed), and a non-lawyer intervener cannot act as the defendant's advocate; costs of the application were awarded to the plaintiff in the sum of HKD 18,385.
28 May 2012

GLOBAL FAIR INDUSTRIAL LTD v. GLOBAL FAIR INDUSTRIAL LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

GLOBAL FAIR INDUSTRIAL LTD v. GLOBAL FAIR INDUSTRIAL LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP397/2012

Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the delay was inordinate and inexcusable, the applicant was not forthcoming and appeared to use the application to delay/enjoin enforcement rather than to pursue a bona fide appeal, and the intended appeal had no real prospect of success; indemnity costs were awarded against the applicant for unreasonable conduct.
16 Nov 1995

THE QUEEN v. LEE ON KEI AND OTHERS

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LEE ON KEI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC359/1994

Extension of time was refused because the applicant's eight month delay was not satisfactorily explained (she made an informed, self‑interested election not to appeal), and the appeal lacked sufficient prospects of success given the evidence permitting an inference of her participation (presence in rear of car and auditory evidence of pouring coins).