Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Procedural bars

Legal area

Court

27 Mar 2026

NGUYEN THI HOA LIEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1808
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL605/2022

Because the applicant's Form 86 was filed more than thirty-four months after the decision and the applicant failed to provide a credible or reasonable explanation for that lengthy delay, the court refused to extend time; having concluded there was no reasonable explanation for the delay, the court did not need to and did not consider the merits, and refused leave to apply for judicial review.
14 Jun 2024

NGUYEN XUAN KHUONG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1425
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1340/2019

Extension of time was refused because the applicant provided no explanation for the 11-day delay, the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success given the Board's unchallenged factual findings, and there was no adequate basis to disturb the Board's decision.
23 Aug 2023

ADJAGBA ROBERT v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2196
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1324/2023

Detention under section 32(3A) remained lawful because the Director acted diligently and expeditiously to procure travel documents and arrange removal, the applicant substantially contributed to delay by refusing to cooperate and by frustrating repatriation operations, repatriation was imminent, and therefore the detention had not become unreasonably long or unlawful.
24 Dec 2021

RE DE SILVA ANTHONY MENEKA KUMARASENA

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1947
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV532/2020

The motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because the intended appeal had no merit: the purportedly new 2005 letter was not properly explained and failed the Ladd v Marshall test for fresh evidence, the second letter had already been considered and rejected by the adjudicator as not contemporaneous or probative, and no question of great general or public importance (nor any basis under the 'or otherwise' limb) was shown under s.22(1)(b) HKCFAO.
30 Apr 2021

SANTI DIANA SARI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCA 614
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP179/2020

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable grounds or any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b); her complaints were bare assertions lacking particulars or evidence and therefore provided no basis for extension of time or leave to appeal.
13 Apr 2021

RE DAS BINDHA

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 867
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1596/2018

The application for extension of time was refused because the applicant failed to provide reasons for the delay or to rebut deemed service, and there was no reasonable prospect of success in the intended appeal as the Board's factual and legal findings showed no error.
13 Jan 2021

AHMAD ERSHAD ALIAS MOHAMMAD IRSHAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 87
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL646/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant used the wrong procedural route to challenge Deputy Judge Lung's decision and failed to appeal within the 14‑day period; the correct remedy was an appeal and, if necessary, a summons for extension of time.
22 Jul 2020

IMBUH KARINA BINTI YAMRONI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFA 25
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV401/2019

Leave to appeal was refused because the Article 2 issue had become academic after the Director reconsidered and maintained his decisions, and the applicants did not demonstrate a reasonably arguable case for leave to apply for judicial review; consequently there was no need to decide the separate question of whether the Court of Appeal's refusal of an extension of time is itself appealable to the Court of Final Appeal.
4 Mar 2019

RE AHAMMED MAMUN

Citation

[2019] HKCA 227
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV428/2018

The applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance as required by s22(1)(b) Cap 484 and has not preserved or properly raised the COI evaluation grounds earlier; accordingly there is no basis to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and the application is dismissed.
28 Feb 2018

郭卓堅 v. 香港島地方選區選舉主任鄧如欣

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 433
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL130/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because, as a matter of discretion, granting leave would risk prejudicing the imminent by-election and there was an adequate alternative remedy by way of an election petition under s.62 of the Legislative Council Ordinance (cap. 542); additionally the applicant lacked the stronger interest of a candidate or elector and any challenge to the earlier decision regarding Mr Law was time‑barred and lacked merit given no obligation on the Returning Officer to take the Legislative Council Oath.