Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delay and service

Legal area

Court

3 Jun 2025

RAJAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2132
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1890/2024

Two weeks' delay notwithstanding, the application was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any arguable error in the refusal of leave, failed to provide draft grounds or particulars for the intended appeal, failed to attend hearings and gave no satisfactory explanation for non-receipt of the decision; on the central criterion (prospect of success) the appeal was hopeless and extension would be futile.
11 Jul 2024

RE MOKTAN BIJAY BAHADUR

Citation

[2024] HKCA 609
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP43/2023

Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant had substantial unexplained delay (service presumed at last known address), failed to identify any arguable grounds with reasonable prospects of success, and the deportation order was within the Secretary's statutory powers under s20(1)(a); accordingly the intended appeal was hopeless.
10 Aug 2023

ANDER KATHYLYN DELA CRUS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2005
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL121/2023

Extension of time was refused because the applicant failed to provide a good or corroborated reason for the 5-day delay and produced no proper draft grounds or particulars demonstrating any arguable error or prospect of success; given the lack of merit the appeal would be futile and the summons for extension was dismissed.
23 Mar 2023

DUKPA AMRITA TSHERING v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 799
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL855/2022

Refusal to extend time: the delay (more than two weeks) was significant and caused by the applicant's failure to notify the court of her new address after release; the applicant failed to present any proper draft grounds or particulars showing an arguable error in the leave refusal so there was no reasonable prospect of success; granting an extension would therefore be futile.
16 Mar 2023

RE DAPTARI MOHAMMAD NAWEM

Citation

[2023] HKCA 346
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP258/2022

The Court refused the extension of time because the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for inordinate delay and the intended appeal had no real prospect of success as the judge had properly and rigorously examined the Board's decision and found no error of law or procedural unfairness, making any extension futile.
16 Aug 2019

RAZA WALEED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD /NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2048
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL170/2018

Extension of time was refused because the applicant was out of time by approximately 36 days, failed to provide the required supporting affirmation or satisfactory explanation for the delay, the court found no arguable grounds of appeal or merit in the underlying claim, and on balance it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension.
27 May 2019

UDEH DOMINIC ONYEMAECHI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1369
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL785/2017

The summons for an extension of time to appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to provide a full and acceptable explanation for the delay, service of the 2nd Order is presumed effective, and on consideration of the length of delay, reasons and the lack of merit in the underlying appeal it is not in the interests of justice to grant an extension.

Hong Kong Case Law

RAJAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

RE MOKTAN BIJAY BAHADUR

ANDER KATHYLYN DELA CRUS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

DUKPA AMRITA TSHERING v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

RE DAPTARI MOHAMMAD NAWEM

RAZA WALEED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD /NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

UDEH DOMINIC ONYEMAECHI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE