Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delay in filing

Legal area

Court

2 Dec 2025

RE ALI AKBAR

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1059
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV432/2023

The application for leave was refused and time to file the notice of motion was not extended because (1) the application was filed more than five months late with no explanation, and (2) the notice of motion and written submissions failed to raise any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) but instead raised only factual matters which did not undermine the Torture Claims Appeal Board's legal conclusion on non-refoulement; on that basis the statutory criteria for leave and for extending time were not met.
28 Nov 2025

RANA MD SHOHEL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1017
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP236/2024

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to show the intended appeal raised any question of great general or public importance as required by s22(1)(b) Cap 484, failed to demonstrate prospects of success, and filed the Notice of Motion outside the statutory 28-day period under s24 without an explanation; accordingly leave was refused and the motion dismissed.
7 Feb 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 565
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL20/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant filed a bare Form 86 and supporting affirmation which disclosed no grounds for judicial review and provided no explanation for the delay in filing, thereby justifying summary dismissal; the court also noted the applicant's death reported by the Immigration Department.
18 Dec 2020

TOCHUKWU PETER OBIMEZIE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD /NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 3105
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1902/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because the Director and TCAB made legally and procedurally sound decisions: factual findings were supported, there was no error of law, the applicant failed to show a real and personal risk under BOR 2 or 3 or persecution, delay undermined the claim, and state protection and internal relocation were viable.
25 Nov 2019

RE HUSSAIN AZHAR

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2728
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL380/2018

Extension of time was refused because the applicant failed to provide particulars or documentary evidence to explain a delay of more than two months, which the court regarded as not insignificant.
19 Nov 2019

HKSAR v. LIMBU JUN KANG (also known as CHAN KING TUNG)

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1295
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC55/2019

Leave to appeal was refused because the complaint that the total sentence was excessive was not reasonably arguable: the sentencing judge adopted appropriate starting points, allowed generous guilty plea and personal discounts (including for the applicant's mental condition), correctly applied the totality principle when ordering a consecutive element given substantial and gratuitous violence, and comparison with another case did not demonstrate error warranting interference.
24 Jul 2019

RE RAZZAQ

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1681
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL831/2017

A delay of more than three weeks in seeking leave for judicial review is not insignificant and, absent an adequate explanation for non-receipt of the decision, does not justify excusing the delay; accordingly leave was refused.
5 Jun 2019

RE MOHAMMED ZUBAIR

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1328
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL548/2017

The court will excuse a short delay (here seven days) where a satisfactory explanation is provided (unreliable postal service) and may proceed to consider the merits, but an applicant must supply draft grounds; failure to provide them affects the court's ability to grant relief.
23 Sept 2016

HKSAR v. ANINWONYE EMMANUEL CHUKWUEMEKA

Citation

HKSAR v. ANINWONYE EMMANUEL CHUKWUEMEKA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC84/2016

Applicant failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for the nearly five-year delay; the sentence (starting point 20 years, one-year enhancement for international element, one-third discount for guilty plea, resulting in 14 years) was within the applicable guidelines and not erroneous in principle; reliance on first-instance decisions did not justify extension of time; leave refused.
10 Nov 2015

JORA SISI OMAR v. JORA HARMIDAR OMAR

Citation

JORA SISI OMAR v. JORA HARMIDAR OMAR
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP19/2011

Leave to appeal refused because the applicant failed to offer a good excuse for inordinate delay and did not demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success under s14AA(4); allegations of misconduct were irrelevant to the taxation of the Bill and could not be used to challenge the costs order via taxation proceedings.