Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delay and procedural fairness

Legal area

Court

28 Apr 2025

KOMPIPAK WUDTIKAI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1617
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1188/2023

Delay of more than one year and ten months was inordinate; court records and Immigration Department confirmation showed the decision was sent to the applicant's address and the applicant had been released earlier, so no valid reason for delay; applicant failed to identify any arguable error or draft grounds and therefore had no reasonable prospect of success; extension of time refused.
27 Jun 2022

RE RAJ NARAYAN

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1785
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1228/2021

Extension of time refused because the delay of approximately three months was significant, the grounds relied on by the applicant had already been considered and rejected by the Director and the Board, the alleged procedural unfairness was unsupported by evidence, the RPO was properly explained and justified given the procedural history and risk of abuse, and there was no realistic prospect of success on the intended appeal.
19 Jan 2022

RE MANISH

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 116
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL845/2018

Refusal to extend time was justified because the applicant's delay of over eight months was substantial and unexplained with no corroborating evidence; the applicant failed to provide any proper draft grounds or particulars demonstrating an arguable error in the original decision; consequently there was no realistic prospect of success and it was futile to grant an extension.
7 Oct 2021

RE ZZAMAN MD ASADU

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2954
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL638/2017

Extension refused because delay of over 19 months was extremely substantial, applicant failed to provide a good reason for the delay (failed to notify imprisonment and thus did not rebut service to last reported address), and failed to present any proper draft grounds or particulars of error so there was no reasonable prospect of success; granting extension would be futile.
23 Sept 2021

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CAI KANG GANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2159
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1271/2014

The court held that the Restraint Order was validly made and, on the evidence, including patterns of transactions and the scale of receipts through R2, there remained a real risk that the funds were proceeds of crime; delay alone did not justify varying the Order to enable satisfaction of the Intervener’s judgment and the discretionary relief sought was refused (the Restraint Order was maintained).
20 May 2020

LUK FUNG YEE v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 880
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI93/2018

The application for a split trial was dismissed because the court found liability and quantum to be intertwined—notably causation and the plaintiff's factual witness evidence—such that a clean demarcation was unrealistic; the risks of duplication, witness reattendance, appellate delay and potential increase in costs, together with inordinate delay by the 3rd defendant in applying, meant a split trial was not just and convenient or proportionate.
26 Apr 2019

MADBAR SOHEL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1120
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL797/2017

Extension of time refused because the applicant failed to provide a prompt and credible explanation for a substantial delay, provided no adequate evidence of non‑receipt of the Order, and the underlying judicial review had no arguable merit warranting an extension; in the circumstances it was not in the interests of justice to grant extension.
12 Jan 2017

HKSAR v. HENAO TORRES OSCAR OSWALDO

Citation

HKSAR v. HENAO TORRES OSCAR OSWALDO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC428/2012

The Court dismissed the s.32 certificate application because the issues raised were fact‑sensitive (not points of law of great and general importance), the jury was entitled to convict on the evidence, the application suffered an inordinate delay of over 40 months, and the application lacked merit.
30 Jun 2014

POLYEVER HOLDINGS LTD v. SAVILLS (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

POLYEVER HOLDINGS LTD v. SAVILLS (HONG KONG) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1039/2010

The plaintiff's late application to accept the sanctioned payment was dismissed because there was no material change of circumstances and, critically, the application was very late such that it would unfairly burden court resources and defeat the object of Order 22; accordingly the defendant was permitted to withdraw the sanctioned payment and costs of both applications were ordered against the plaintiff with a certificate for counsel.
9 Nov 2010

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. HARMUTTY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. HARMUTTY LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV212/2008

The court held that the Taiwan conviction and judgment are inadmissible and irrelevant for the purpose of taxation of costs under the authority of Hollington v Hewthorn as applied in Hong Kong; OBrien did not displace that principle in the circumstances; waiver/estoppel arguments failed; the Court of Appeal costs orders were plain and entitled the 4th defendant to the costs; the Plaintiff's amendment application was both substantively unfounded and unacceptably delayed and therefore the applications to amend were dismissed and costs were awarded to the 4th defendant.