Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Extension of time and delay

Legal area

Court

17 Dec 2025

NGUYEN HA NAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6190
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL726/2020

The leave application is dismissed: it was filed more than a year out of time with no explanation and no application for extension, and on its merits the Board's decision contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and thus the applicant lacked a reasonably arguable claim with realistic prospects of success.
28 Jan 2025

RODRIGUEZ CARRENO SAMUEL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 401
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1741/2024

Extension of time and leave were refused because the applicant's delay in filing was substantial and unexplained, his proffered reasons were not credible or supported by evidence, and the Board's decision was lawful and reasonable with no error of law or procedural unfairness.
23 May 2023

MUSHTAQ IMRAN ALI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1394
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL457/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review and extension of time were refused because the delay of almost four years nine months was substantial and unexplained and, on merits, the Board's decision was lawfully reached, fair, and not Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational such that the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.
7 Jan 2022

RE DO TUAN ANH

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 71
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL202/2021

The application for extension of time was refused because the delay was significant (over two months), the applicant offered inadequate reasons for the delay, and there was no realistic prospect of success in the intended appeal given the Board's findings of low risk, availability of state protection and internal relocation and that the matter was a private monetary dispute not engaging BOR 2 risk.
20 Sept 2021

KHOMARIYAH BT SURYAT TUKIJAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1310
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP163/2021

Extension of time was refused because the delay was substantial and inadequately explained, the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success as no arguable errors of law or procedural unfairness were identified, and the Deputy Judge was not shown to be plainly wrong; dismissal of the summons and refusal of extension followed.
27 Sept 2019

PHAM THI VAN ANH FOR HOANG PHUONG THAO v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2182
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1485/2018

Applicants were more than eight months late with no adequate explanation; their proposed grounds disclosed no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness and lacked reasonable prospects of success; the Director and the Board lawfully found the risk to be localized with state protection and internal relocation available; therefore no extension of time granted and leave dismissed.
17 Mar 2017

HW AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

HW AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL129/2014

The court dismissed the judicial reviews and set aside the ex parte leave for delay because (1) the Director lawfully applied the Guidebook eligibility criteria (NRD and Financial Sufficiency) as eligibility thresholds; (2) the Director's conclusions that applicants had known adverse records were reasonably open on the evidence (including admissions and passport inconsistencies) and not Wednesbury irrational; (3) the Director took into account applicants' explanations and family circumstances and was entitled to decline to exercise humanitarian discretion absent exceptional grounds; (4) proce…
15 Oct 1996

PANG HON WAH and Others v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

PANG HON WAH and Others v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1233/1996

Leave to apply for judicial review should not be set aside: the applicants established a good reason for extending time (reliance on the Cheung decision and public importance), any non-disclosure was not shown to be deliberate or sufficient to vitiate leave, and asserted prejudice or detriment to good administration was not established; the matters should be investigated on the merits given the apparent systemic practice in the department.