Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Finality and functus officio

Legal area

Court

20 Jan 2026

HKSAR v. LAM MAN TAK

Citation

[2026] HKCA 67
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC49/2018

Court granted a 1 year 7 months (19 months) reduction (just over 7%) for practical assistance; identified 18 September 2018 as the commencement of the 'state of affairs' leading to Huang Ruifang (No 3); held that revised guidelines apply in principle to those still 'in the system' on or after 18 September 2018 but, on application to this applicant (offence and sentence in February 2018), his role and culpability meant no additional reduction under Huang and the only reduction appropriate was for assistance, resulting in overall sentence reduced from 22 years 4 months to 20 years 9 months.
8 May 2025

RE ABDUL WAHAB

Citation

[2025] HKCA 409
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP217/2023

Extension of time to appeal was refused because the Leave Decision had been sent to the applicant's last known address, the applicant was one month late, and there was no realistic prospect of success since the Board validly accepted the applicant's informed withdrawal and no public law error was identified, making any extension futile.
12 Apr 2024

TAHMOOR HUSSAIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2024] HKCA 291
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP144/2023

The extension of time is refused because the applicant showed a substantial unexplained delay and failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's or Director's decisions; the applicant validly withdrew his appeal which rendered the Board functus officio, and judicial review is not an avenue to rehear the merits, so there were no real prospects of success to justify an extension.
7 May 2010

CHIU KIN HO v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

CHIU KIN HO v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL135/2004

The summons for extension of time was dismissed because the applicant had an unexplained, substantial delay (over five years) in issuing the originating summons after leave was granted, his stated reasons (ignorance, financial constraints, caregiving) did not constitute good reasons, a change in law (Lam Siu Po) was not sufficient to justify extension absent other good reasons, and reopening grounds previously refused was not permitted after the Court of Appeal had considered and rejected them; accordingly the court exercised its discretion against granting extension and refused leave to argu…

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. LAM MAN TAK

RE ABDUL WAHAB

TAHMOOR HUSSAIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CHIU KIN HO v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE