Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delay and late filing

Legal area

Court

21 Nov 2025

KULDEEP SINGH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5436
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1343/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the application failed to identify particularised and reasonably arguable grounds with a realistic prospect of success, parts of the challenge were not reviewable after the petition process, the NRCPO lawfully considered the merits and delay under the Ordinance, procedural fairness standards were met, and remittal would be futile.
20 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3552
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1434/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds in Form 86 or Affirmation, there was no demonstrable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the NRCPO decision, the delay in filing was not insubstantial and remittal would be futile.
6 Jun 2024

ANNY TETI AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2024] HKCA 503
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV268/2022

The Court refused leave to appeal because the applicants substantially delayed their application with no explanation, failed to identify any question of great general or public importance or any error in the Court of Appeal judgment, and the intended appeal had no merits or reasonable prospect of success; non-compliance with Order 80 rule 2 was treated as a mere irregularity.
11 Aug 2023

FIFIA NINGRUM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2082
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL675/2023

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Board's refusal to allow late filing or in the Director's risk assessment; the Board reasonably found lack of due diligence and absence of circumstances beyond the applicant's control, and the Director reasonably found the risk localized with viable internal relocation and state protection, so judicial review would be an improper rehearing.
28 Jan 2022

RE AKHMETZYANOVA IRINA

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 184
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1409/2021

Extension of time was refused because, although the applicant was only one day late, the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success: the Director's risk assessment (low risk, no state involvement, internal relocation available) and the Board's considered refusal to extend time for late filing were reasonable; therefore granting extension would be futile.
13 Jul 2021

RE SAWINDER SINGH

Citation

[2021] HKCA 998
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV618/2020

The Judge did not commit error of law or procedure in refusing leave; no viable grounds were advanced to overturn that refusal; the Board's decisions did not display legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality and the refusal to accept the late filing was justified; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

KULDEEP SINGH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

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

ANNY TETI AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

FIFIA NINGRUM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

RE AKHMETZYANOVA IRINA

RE SAWINDER SINGH