Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delay and laches

Legal area

Court

11 May 2026

MAC THI HIEU AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2026] HKCA 681
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV640/2025

The Judge correctly refused leave because the application was substantially out of time with no acceptable explanation and the intended BOR2 challenge lacked merit; the Board and Director committed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and minors' claims were properly considered, so there was no basis to grant leave and the appeal is dismissed.
24 Apr 2025

SHUN YEE NATIVES ASSOCIATION (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER v. DENG JIE LING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1732
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1119/2023

The Summons was dismissed because the applicant failed to act with due expedition (14 months' unexplained delay), failed to show irreparable harm given the defendants' continued management without evidence of personal gain and audit transparency, and because injunctive relief would likely disrupt ongoing company management; exercise of discretion to grant interlocutory relief was therefore refused and costs awarded to the defendants (certificate for two counsel and assessed amounts).
11 Mar 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 977
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2110/2020

Extension of time and leave were refused because the applicant delayed about two years eight months, provided no reasonable or credible explanation, failed to comply with court directions (which were properly served), and thereby demonstrated an inordinate delay and abuse of process such that the application was dismissed for want of prosecution without need to consider merits.
3 Jan 2025

RAZA ALI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 129
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1582/2020

Extension of time was refused because the delay (over five months) was substantial and inadequately explained (no corroborating medical evidence), the applicant failed to identify any error or provide draft grounds or particulars indicating a real prospect of success, and therefore an extension would be futile.
11 Jul 2024

CAPITAL CENTURY TEXTILE COMPANY LTD v. LI DIANXIAO AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCA 651
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV471/2021

The Court refused the stays. The appeals were not shown to be so strong as to justify a stay without more; any arguable appeal did not meet the required additional showing that the appeal would be rendered nugatory because there was no real risk of dissipation (lis pendens registered and CCT's undertakings), and the appellants had been dilatory in seeking stays. Accordingly the balance favoured refusing the stays and ordering costs against the applicants, assessed summarily at HK$80,000 (Mr Li) and HK$100,000 (Mr Cong).
10 Apr 2024

YCWR v. YCW

Citation

[2024] HKFC 45
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC6604/2016

The court exercised its discretion to grant leave because the Husband provided a credible explanation for omission (lack of independent legal advice and reliance on a family understanding), the delay was promptly triggered by the daughter’s claim and therefore not inordinate, the Wife would not be unduly prejudiced, and the Husband demonstrated a seriously arguable case (possible adverse finding on the daughter’s beneficial ownership could create accommodation needs and there are disputed asset distributions).
31 Aug 2023

SUSILAWATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2199
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL143/2022

Extension of time to appeal was refused because the delay was inordinate (more than one year), the applicant offered no credible evidence or explanation for the delay, failed to present draft grounds or identify errors of law or procedural unfairness, and therefore the intended appeal had no real prospect of success; granting extension would be futile.
8 Jun 2023

NGUYEN DUY SANG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1486
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL111/2021

The application for extension of time was refused because the applicant had an inordinate delay (about 1 year 9 months) without any good or valid reason, failed to identify or particularise any arguable error in the earlier refusal of leave, and thus there was no reasonable prospect of success, making an extension futile.
12 Dec 2022

RE ASLAM HOSSAIN

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1798
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP135/2022

The summons for extension of time to appeal was dismissed because the judge's decision was sent to the applicant's last known address and not returned, the applicant offered no satisfactory explanation for delay or failure to update his address, and the intended appeal disclosed no arguable error of law or prospect of success, so extension was not justified.
19 Oct 2022

RE MEHMOOD SAJID

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3125
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL382/2019

Refusal to extend time because the three-week delay was substantial and unexplained, the applicant failed to provide corroborating evidence or identify any arguable error or draft grounds demonstrating a reasonable prospect of success, and therefore extension would be futile.