Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delay and promptness

Legal area

Court

4 Aug 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3221
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL391/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable grounds, the Board applied the law correctly and made entitled credibility and factual findings, and the application was filed almost three years late with no explanation so the court refused to exercise its discretion to extend time.
3 Jun 2025

RE NGUYEN VAN QUYEN

Citation

[2025] HKCA 510
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP243/2024

Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant had a substantial and unexplained delay and failed to specify any viable ground of appeal demonstrating error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; accordingly the intended appeal had no real prospect of success and extension would be futile.
6 Jan 2025

HARJIT SINGH v. MR. LAW MAN CHING, VIO AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 100
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2393/2024

The application was dismissed because the applicant is not detained so habeas corpus is inappropriate, and alternatively he failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law grounds for judicial review and the matters are out of time, contrary to Order 53 requirements.
26 Sept 2024

YATNI HARWATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2608
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL166/2023

Extension of time was refused and leave dismissed because the applicant was 2.5 months out of time without any explanation for the inordinate delay, the intended application disclosed no arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions, the Board's assessment that the risk was localized and internal relocation and state protection were available was sustainable, and the applicant later confirmed it was safe to return to Indonesia.
22 May 2024

張伯如 v. 地政總署署長

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1143
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1869/2023

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants (save for Mr Cheung) lacked standing, the challenges were brought after inexcusable and substantial delay, the applicants failed to identify any specific and arguable public law wrong, and the Director's enforcement decisions concerning unauthorised occupation of Government land are land administration decisions not amenable to judicial review; cumulatively these defects meant no realistic prospect of success.
28 Mar 2024

盧肖娟 v. 證監會主席：雷主席添良先生

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 582
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1373/2023

The application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because there was an available and more appropriate alternative remedy in private civil proceedings for the Applicant's compensatory claims, and there was no reasonably arguable public law ground of review with a realistic prospect of success (the alleged regulatory offences under the SFO did not plainly apply and no discrete reviewable decision by the SFC had been identified).
20 Mar 2024

CHAN CHUNG SING v. CHAN ANDY YUAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 536
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1582/2017

Relief from the dismissal imposed by the Unless Order was granted despite inordinate delay because the court found the majority of defaults occurred during a period when the plaintiff's solicitors were at fault, the dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct, the plaintiff's breaches were not shown to be intentional or contumelious, and on balance the prejudice to the defendants was manageable if substantial protective conditions were imposed; relief was therefore conditional on payment into court of specified sums and payment of indemnity costs and compliance with a tight timetable, wi…
12 Jul 2023

RE PAL JITENDER

Citation

[2023] HKCA 818
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP200/2022

Refusal to extend time and dismissal of the summons: the applicant's delay was excessive (over three years for the JR application and additional weeks for appeal), he failed to discharge the burden of explaining non‑receipt or providing corroborative evidence, and the intended appeal had no real prospect of success because the Director and the Board had lawfully and reasonably assessed the non‑refoulement claim; extension would therefore be futile.
27 Apr 2022

HO KWOK MING v. WONG HUNG HO AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKDC 370
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5031/2021

The court was satisfied there is a high degree of assurance that the plaintiff will establish at trial a right of way or a prescriptive easement over the Lot 965 Path, that irreparable harm (including risk to medical emergencies) would result if the injunction were refused and that the balance of convenience favours granting a mandatory interlocutory injunction to reopen the Lot 965 Path within 14 days; fortification was not justified and damages would be an adequate protection for defendant if wronged.
19 Jul 2021

RE USMAN YUMIATI

Citation

[2021] HKCA 992
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP198/2020

Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant gave no reasonable explanation for the delay and there were no arguable public law grounds or realistic prospects of success to justify extending time; the judge properly refused leave to apply for judicial review and the Board's findings were not shown to be vulnerable to public law challenge.