Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Merits of appeal

Legal area

Court

9 Mar 2026

NGUYEN VAN DUONG v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1379
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2464/2025

The summons for an extension of time to appeal was dismissed because the applicant's delay (approximately three months) was substantial, the reasons for delay were unconvincing in light of the court record showing service and previous English filings, and the proposed appeal had no identified merits or public law grounds (including that the subject matter was a prosecutorial decision not open to ordinary judicial review), so the overall justice did not favour extending time.
16 Jan 2024

RE NGUYEN MANH QUYEN

Citation

[2024] HKCA 36
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV447/2022

The applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) HKCFAO and did not demonstrate any specific error in the Court of Appeal Judgment; his assertions were vague, unsupported and merely re‑ran previously rejected arguments, therefore leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused.
23 Feb 2023

RE ZAFAR IQBAL

Citation

[2023] HKCA 208
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV327/2021

The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance as required by s22(1)(b) HKCFAO and there was no basis under the 'or otherwise' limb; the intended appeal had no merit.
26 May 2017

ABAYOMI BAMIDELE FAY v. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY AND ANOTHER

Citation

ABAYOMI BAMIDELE FAY v. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3159/2016

The application for extension was refused because the 17‑month delay was serious and inordinate, the applicant offered no credible explanation for the delay, the intended appeal lacked merit, and granting an extension would prejudice effective immigration control, justifying refusal of the extension.
3 Oct 2014

CHAN WAN YEE v. CHAN TO FUN

Citation

CHAN WAN YEE v. CHAN TO FUN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV21/2014

Because the appellant demonstrated impecuniosity and the court formed a provisional view that the appeal was wholly without merit (or at least not strong), the Court of Appeal, exercising its discretion under Order 59 r 10, ordered security for costs in the sum of $133,300, stayed the appeal until lodgement, and provided for dismissal and costs consequences in default.
7 Jan 2011

HKSAR v. NG MEI FA

Citation

HKSAR v. NG MEI FA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC420/2009

The application for leave was without merit and misdirected to this court; accordingly, under s13B Costs in Criminal Cases Ordinance the applicant must pay the respondent's costs of the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, to be taxed if not agreed.
23 Feb 2009

LIMBU LAXMI PRASAD v. DRAGAGES (HK) JOINT VENTURE

Citation

LIMBU LAXMI PRASAD v. DRAGAGES (HK) JOINT VENTURE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP197/2009

Extension of time refused because there was a substantial delay of about 14 months, the applicant gave no reasonable explanation for the delay, and the proposed appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success based on objective medical evidence; absence of specific prejudice to respondent did not outweigh these matters.
4 Feb 2009

RE KWAN HIN KEE

Citation

RE KWAN HIN KEE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV291/2008

Security for costs was ordered because the appellant is an adjudged bankrupt and impecunious and the proposed appeal has slim prospects; the amount was adjusted to be proportionate by disallowing disproportionate application fees, resulting in security ordered of $177,500.
16 Oct 2007

JOHN ROBERT LEES v. HUI YAT SING AND ANOTHER

Citation

JOHN ROBERT LEES v. HUI YAT SING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV277/2007

Because the court found that there was some merit in the appeal and that ordering security for costs would likely stifle the appeal, the court refused to order security for costs, particularly in relation to litigants in person.
29 Jun 2007

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. WENLOY LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. WENLOY LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV427/2006

The appeal was dismissed because the Vice-President's order for security for costs was a proper exercise of discretion: the outstanding statutory demand established impecuniosity and the appellant failed to demonstrate sufficient merits in the appeal to justify withholding security for costs.