Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Limitation/extension of time

Legal area

Court

28 Apr 2026

HUSNUL HOTIMAH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2356
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1324/2024

Leave was refused because the application was substantially out of time with no satisfactory explanation, the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director’s or Board’s decisions, and the Board and Director reasonably concluded there was low risk, available state protection and viable internal relocation alternatives.
13 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1288
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1664/2021

Extension of time to apply for leave to apply for judicial review was refused and the leave application dismissed because the application was brought over four years late without any explanation for the delay and because the applicant had no realistic prospect of success: the Board lawfully exercised its fact‑finding role, accepted the facts, reasonably found assaults were minor, no persecution or BOR Article 2 risk, and that state protection and internal relocation were viable, so there was no arguable illegality or procedural unfairness to justify intervention.
11 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1133
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL25/2022

The leave application is dismissed because it was filed out of time with no application to extend time and, substantively, the applicant's challenge lacked a reasonably arguable prospect of success: the Board properly considered the evidence, reasonably found the applicant not credible, and lawfully concluded that state protection and internal relocation were available; no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was shown.
14 Nov 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5428
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1661/2020

The application for leave was dismissed because the TCAB had considered the evidence, applied correct legal principles, made credible factual findings that state protection and internal relocation were available, and there were no arguable errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the leave application was also out of time and no extension of time was justified.
30 Oct 2025

JOGA SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5138
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1263/2020

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant was 6 years and 9 months out of time, offered no good reason to extend time, failed to exhaust the statutory appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board and did not apply to re-open his withdrawn non-refoulement claim; given the inordinate delay and lack of prospects of success the court refused to extend time and dismissed the leave application.
29 Jul 2025

TAMANG JYOTI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3262
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL914/2020

The leave application is dismissed because it was filed well outside the statutory three‑month period without satisfactory explanation and, on the merits, the Board's decision was lawfully reached after proper notice and scrutiny of evidence and contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the claim lacked realistic prospects of success.
8 Jul 2025

LE HONG PHONG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2858
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL957/2020

The leave application is dismissed because it was filed out of time with no justification and, on the merits, the applicant validly and informedly withdrew his appeal (also effective under s37ZTA(2)), so there was no arguable basis for judicial review and no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision.
21 Feb 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 745
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL196/2020

Leave was refused because the Form 86 was filed out of time without an application to extend time; the delay was substantial and inordinate; the applicant's explanations were inadequate and unsupported by documentary evidence; the Board lawfully applied the correct statutory test to refuse late filing of the notice of appeal and its decision was not legally flawed, procedurally unfair or irrational, and the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.
2 Jan 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 174
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1899/2024

Leave was refused because the Form 86 was filed materially out of time without any application for extension or explanation and, on merits, the proposed judicial review was not reasonably arguable: the Board's decision involved no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the findings on credibility, severity of incidents, state protection and internal relocation were within the Board's permissible fact-finding remit.
1 Aug 2024

LAMA TENJING v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1976
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL449/2023

Leave was refused because the application was brought some 3.5 years out of time with no explanation, the intended challenge disclosed no reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision, the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions about low risk, availability of state protection and internal relocation were open to it, and BOR 2 was not properly engaged on the facts.