Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Duty to notify change of address

Legal area

Court

18 Feb 2025

RE IMRAN ISHTIAQ LONE

Citation

[2025] HKCA 125
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV403/2024

The applicant’s delay was inordinate and inadequately explained (failure to notify change of address); the Board properly applied s37ZT in refusing late filing and made no legal error or irrational or unfair finding; the intended judicial review had no realistic prospect of success; therefore refusal to extend time and dismissal of the leave application was correct and the appeal is dismissed.
17 Dec 2024

RE LITON MD

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1146
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP141/2023

The extension of time to appeal was refused because the Judge's order was posted to the applicant's last known address and not returned, creating an inference of notice; the applicant failed to notify any address change and offered no adequate explanation for the delay; the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's or Judge's decisions such that the intended appeal was hopeless; accordingly there is no basis to extend time for a hopeless appeal.
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.
23 Nov 2022

RE LAKHWINDER SINGH

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1668
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP363/2022

Extension of time was refused because the applicant’s delay was substantial and caused by his own failure to notify change of address, he had no real prospect of success on appeal because there were no arguable public law errors in the Board’s or judge’s decisions, and consequently it would be futile and prejudicial to grant an extension.
16 Jun 2022

RE ELOK PASMAWATI

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1698
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL10/2019

Refusal to extend time because the applicant had an inordinate three-month delay without a satisfactory explanation (duty to notify change of address not discharged) and because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error or grounds giving a reasonable prospect of success in the intended appeal; therefore extension would be futile.
21 Aug 2019

RE BHUPINDER SINGH

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2013
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL794/2017

The court concluded that, in the absence of particulars, the applicant's unexplained non-appearance and the lack of any indication that he had changed his address (despite a duty to inform the Immigration Department) meant the summons could be dealt with adversely to the applicant.
23 Nov 2018

RE SHAH ZAFAR ALI

Citation

[2018] HKCA 867
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP89/2018

Extension of time and leave to appeal were refused because the applicant showed both inordinate and unexplained delay, failed to discharge the duty to update his address, and could not demonstrate any reasonably arguable ground or real prospect of success on the merits of the intended judicial review; the adjudicator's decision disclosed no legal error or unfairness and was not Wednesbury unreasonable.

Hong Kong Case Law

RE IMRAN ISHTIAQ LONE

RE LITON MD

DUKPA AMRITA TSHERING v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

RE LAKHWINDER SINGH

RE ELOK PASMAWATI

RE BHUPINDER SINGH

RE SHAH ZAFAR ALI