Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Leave out of time

Legal area

Court

15 Jan 2026

MASUD v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 329
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2441/2020

The court allowed late filing for the amended leave application but refused substantive leave because the immigration officer properly applied s37ZO and made permissible findings of fact on credibility, state protection and internal relocation; there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality and the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.
19 Aug 2025

NZEKWABAM MICHAEL IFEANYI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3453
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1260/2020

The application was refused and dismissed because it was filed over 20 months late without any credible explanation; the Board's decision superseded the DOI decision; the Board had lawfully and reasonably assessed the evidence, including state protection and relocation, and no arguable legal error was shown, so extension of time and leave were refused.
29 May 2024

CERENEO CHERRIE ANNE GALINDO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1463
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL521/2024

Leave refused because the application was filed out of time and, on anxious scrutiny, the Board applied the correct legal tests, its factual findings were supported by country information and evidence, state protection and internal relocation were available, there was no error of law or procedural unfairness and the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.
9 May 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1239
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL665/2020

Leave to file out of time and the leave application were refused because the applicant filed out of time, offered no credible explanation that would outweigh the lack of merits, the Board's adverse credibility findings were rational and free of legal error or procedural unfairness, and the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.
19 Mar 2024

CHAN YIU MAN v. HA CHING MAN MARIA

Citation

[2024] HKDC 461
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI349/2020

Because the plaintiff had only partial blame for delayed disclosure but the defendant could have discounted a sanctioned payment despite incomplete disclosure and the plaintiff's claim was grossly inflated, the court ordered no costs up to and including 24 November 2021; the plaintiff must pay the defendant's assessment costs after 24 November 2021 on indemnity; enhanced interest on costs set at 3% per annum above prevailing judgment rate from 25 November 2021 to 16 February 2024; specific interest rates on heads of damages until 24 November 2021 were also fixed.
3 Mar 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 674
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1190/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the application was substantially out of time and the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success: the Board's Decision correctly applied the law, was procedurally fair (applicant had opportunity to be heard but absented himself), and its factual findings that there was no real risk, that state protection and internal relocation were available, were sustainable and not Wednesbury unreasonable.
11 Aug 2022

TUONG DUY TRUNG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2485
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL272/2022

Leave to amend was granted but the application for extension of time and leave to apply for judicial review were refused because the application was substantially out of time with no satisfactory explanation and the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success; the Director lawfully applied s37ZO(2), made no error of law or procedural unfairness and his factual conclusion that no significant change had occurred was not Wednesbury unreasonable.
4 Apr 2022

YUSUK PRAWIT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 869
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1689/2021

The application was refused because the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success given the Board's lawful application of the law, its credible adverse findings of fact and availability of state protection, and because the applicant's delay of over thirteen months with no explanation meant there was no good reason to extend time and refusal to extend time caused less prejudice than allowing a futile late challenge.
22 Mar 2017

HKSAR v. NAM KA CHAI

Citation

HKSAR v. NAM KA CHAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC81/2016

The applicant's report to police was compelled and did not amount to voluntary surrender so it did not attract additional mitigation; however his substantial assistance to the prosecution warranted the upper limit discount of 45% from a 12‑year starting point producing 6 years 7 months, the court preserved the judge's discretionary 3‑month credit yielding 6 years 4 months and, taking into account remissions and earliest release calculations, substituted a sentence permitting immediate release; extension of time and admission of fresh evidence were granted in the interests of justice.
10 Oct 2014

SCHINDLER LIFTS (HONG KONG) LTD v. NIKKO SERVICES LTD

Citation

SCHINDLER LIFTS (HONG KONG) LTD v. NIKKO SERVICES LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2263/2013

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the defendant failed to show error in law or fact or a reasonable prospect of success; most allegedly missing documents were in court files or irrelevant to the proceedings; there was no other reason in the interests of justice to hear the appeal; accordingly there was no basis to grant leave or to grant a stay, and costs were ordered to the plaintiff nisi.