Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delay and prejudice

Legal area

Court

14 May 2026

RE CHANTHARASIRI SINGHA

Citation

[2026] HKCA 975
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV133/2025

The Judge was plainly wrong in law for failing to consider that the Board had not considered the merits when refusing late filing under s37ZT; the Court may intervene and exercise the discretion afresh, but upon a fresh multifactorial exercise the applicant's substantial unexplained delay (over 1 year 10 months) and the need for a disciplined approach to public law time limits justified refusal of leave to apply for judicial review despite arguable merits.
27 Apr 2026

CEESAY OUSMAN alias CEESAY MICHAEL OUSMAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2335
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL272/2021

Extension of time refused because the applicant's delay of over two years and three months was inordinate, his explanation lacked corroboration, and his intended judicial review disclosed no reasonably arguable ground (no demonstrated error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions); accordingly leave was dismissed.
21 Apr 2026

TOURAY SARJO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2211
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL795/2021

Application for extension of time refused because delay of over one year and three months was inordinate, applicant gave no reliable explanation, and applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law or unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions so there was no prospect of success; accordingly leave was refused and the leave application dismissed.
6 Mar 2026

MOOSA JAHIDABEGUM MOHAMMED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 881
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1631/2020

Extension of time refused because the delay was significant and explained inconsistently and unsatisfactorily; there were no identified or arguable grounds of appeal and therefore no prospect of success, making an extension pointless.
27 Oct 2025

HOMEMAIN HOLDINGS LTD v. LI CHAOBO AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5126
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA595/2021

Although the 1st Defendant's explanation for delay was not fully satisfactory, the proposed amendment was not a surprise to the plaintiff (similar plea by 2nd Defendant in 2021), the plaintiff would have adequate time before trial to address the supplemental statement, and any prejudice could be compensated by costs; accordingly leave to amend and to file the supplemental witness statement was granted, with indemnity costs to the plaintiff for the application and specific directions.
27 Oct 2025

MIUMI INTERNATIONAL FOOD COMPANY LTD v. CHAN KA CHUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5970
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1348/2021

On rehearing the judge found D6&D7 to be at least equal attackers because they had demanded payment, issued statutory demands and advanced counterclaims based on the same invoices; the counterclaim raises essentially the same issues and will be litigated regardless, and D6&D7 gave no satisfactory explanation for a significant delay in bringing the security application which caused real prejudice to Plaintiff; in the exercise of discretion security for costs was refused and the Master's order was affirmed.
27 Oct 2025

MIUMI INTERNATIONAL FOOD COMPANY LTD v. CHAN KA CHUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5970
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1952/2021

Appeal dismissed because D6&D7 are at least equal attackers: they initiated statutory demands and a counterclaim based on the same invoices, such that the issues would be fully litigated regardless; ordering security would be unfair. Further, D6&D7's lengthy unexplained delay in applying for security caused real prejudice to the plaintiff. On these discretionary grounds under s.905 Companies Ordinance the court refused to order security and dismissed the appeal. Costs of the appeal assessed at HK$300,000 against D6&D7.
30 Jul 2025

RE NGUYEN THANH DAI

Citation

[2025] HKCA 679
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP107/2025

Extension refused because the applicant was three months late, failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay despite court records showing service, filed no arguable grounds for judicial review so the intended appeal had no real prospect of success, and granting an extension would be futile.
29 Jul 2025

WING LOK CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO LTD v. TECHOY CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3310
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT2/2023

Leave to amend was refused because the proposed amendments were late, inadequately particularised, and in part bound to fail or be useless on the Plaintiff's own evidence; permitting them would cause real prejudice and disruption to the PTR and trial timetable. Only a single consequential amendment to paragraph 5A of the Reply and Defence to Counterclaim was allowed; all other amendment applications were dismissed and costs awarded to the Defendant with a Certificate for Counsel.
25 Jun 2025

RE SARMAN MILAKARINA

Citation

[2025] HKCA 584
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP85/2024

Extension of time to appeal was granted and the appeal allowed because the omission of the applicant's son and daughter from the judicial review form was excusable on the evidence and the application should be treated as a rolled up hearing; the proper course is to remit the matter to the Judge for reconsideration of the joint application including the children, with the applicant to file a notice of appeal within 14 days.