Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Limitation/delay

Legal area

Court

17 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6012
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL423/2022

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law errors; the Board's adverse credibility and factual findings were rational and not susceptible to judicial review; the Form 86 and affirmation lacked clear grounds and full disclosure; and the unexplained delay militated against granting an extension of time, so there were no realistic prospects of success.
5 Mar 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 904
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2672/2024

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the application was filed over four years late without satisfactory explanation and the proposed grounds lacked reasonable arguability and realistic prospects of success: the Board's findings on credibility and risk were lawful, procedurally fair and not Wednesbury unreasonable, and no error of law or procedural unfairness was identified.
27 Jan 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 431
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1065/2023

The Leave Application is dismissed because it was filed out of time without explanation and the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board correctly applied the law and reasonably concluded there was no real risk and that state protection/internal relocation were viable, so leave was not reasonably arguable.
15 Jan 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 331
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1629/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the application was filed grossly out of time without explanation and, on merits, the proposed challenge was not reasonably arguable: the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions that there was no real risk of torture, persecution or violation of BOR rights and that state protection/internal relocation were available involved no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and therefore did not justify judicial intervention.
31 Mar 2023

RE BUTT ASIF ELLAHI

Citation

[2023] HKCA 459
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV491/2020

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the substantial delay of over 13 months and, on the merits, failed to identify any question of great general or public importance or any reasonably arguable error to justify leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal; debarment from written submissions reinforced the dismissal.
14 Mar 2023

RE PHAM DUC BANG

Citation

[2023] HKCA 337
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV536/2021

The notice of motion for leave to appeal was dismissed because it was filed out of time without any explanation and the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance or any arguable ground of appeal under section 22(1)(b) HKCFAO, and there was no basis to grant leave under the 'or otherwise' limb.
27 Oct 2022

李鴻發 v. 香港警務處 AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3165
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL542/2022

Application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the Civil Service Bureau had no involvement, the challenge was brought out of time with no extension sought, the applicant failed to identify any arguable grounds of review in breach of procedural rules, and there was no arguable public law error in the disciplinary decision made under Police Force Ordinance s37(5).
5 Jul 2022

RE KHAN MOHAMMAD SHAIDUL ISLAM

Citation

[2022] HKCA 917
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV564/2020

The out-of-time Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay and failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) Cap 484 or any basis under the "otherwise" limb; the matters raised were not reasonably arguable.
1 Jun 2022

吳銳堂對陳志強

Citation

[2022] HKDC 577
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5924/2019

The defendant's statements in the 19 June 2012 letter were made in the course of legitimate committee business and were based on facts the defendant honestly believed; there was no evidence of malice or of a lack of factual basis sufficient to defeat qualified (occasioned) privilege, therefore the defence of qualified privilege succeeds and the plaintiff's defamation claim fails. The court exercises its costs discretion to order the plaintiff to pay 50% of the defendant's costs.
5 Sept 2019

RE LOURENCO DA SILVA

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1007
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV231/2019

The appeal is dismissed: the applicant failed to lodge a skeleton argument thereby forfeiting an oral hearing and the applicant failed to show any reasonably arguable grounds or special circumstances to justify late filings or to establish an error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; judicial review cannot be used to rehear the merits of a non-refoulement determination.