Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delay and prospect of success

Legal area

Court

5 Nov 2024

VU DINH PHUONG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1014
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP280/2023

Extension of time was refused because the applicant did not provide a justifiable explanation for the delay (failed to maintain an effective address), and, given the inexcusable delay, he failed to demonstrate a real prospect of success on the merits as the intended subsequent non‑refoulement claim was of the same private nature as the prior rejected claim and lacked supporting evidence; the judge was also entitled to determine the matter on paper.
7 Sept 2023

RE MOHAMMAD YASIN

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1004
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP188/2022

Extension of time was refused because the applicant's unexplained delay was substantial and, critically, the intended appeal was unarguable — the leave application had been dismissed at the applicant's own instance (cancellation) and no valid grounds or prospects of success were shown, rendering extension futile.
19 May 2022

RE PHAM VAN NHAM

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1348
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1050/2021

Extension of time was refused because the delay (almost five weeks) was inordinate, the applicant's explanations were insufficient, and the applicant failed to present any arguable grounds or particulars showing a reasonable prospect of success, making an extension futile.
3 Nov 2021

RE NWACHUKWU CHIMA COSMAS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3181
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1503/2018

Refusal of extension of time was warranted because the applicant's delay of over three weeks was substantial and unexplained by evidence, he failed to identify any error or produce draft grounds showing a reasonable prospect of success, and therefore granting extension would be futile.
15 Jun 2021

RE HUSSAIN ZAKIR

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1584
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL890/2018

Extension of time was refused because the applicant's delay of over five months was substantial, he failed to provide credible or documentary evidence explaining the delay, he did not identify any error or put forward proper draft grounds demonstrating a reasonable prospect of success, and therefore granting an extension would be futile.
9 Mar 2021

RE GILL AMRIK SINGH AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 443
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL296/2018

Refusal to extend time: the delay (over six weeks) was significant; applicants failed to provide credible reasons or corroborating evidence for the delay; no proper or particularised grounds of appeal were advanced; no arguable error identified; minors had no new grounds; therefore there was no reasonable prospect of success and extension would be futile, so the summons was dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

VU DINH PHUONG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

RE MOHAMMAD YASIN

RE PHAM VAN NHAM

RE NWACHUKWU CHIMA COSMAS

RE HUSSAIN ZAKIR

RE GILL AMRIK SINGH AND OTHERS