16 Sept 2025
Extension of time refused because applicant gave inconsistent and uncredible reasons for delay, failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law or reasonable prospect of success in the intended judicial review, and the Board's factual findings stood, therefore pursuing the appeal would be hopeless.
15 Mar 2023
The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because, notwithstanding a minimal two‑day delay, the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable merit or any question of great general or public importance as required by HKCFAO s 22(1)(b); consequently there was no basis to grant leave or to exercise discretion in favour of extension of time.
23 Feb 2023
The Court exercised its discretion under sections 24(5) and 24(6) HKCFAO and refused to extend time because the applicant was substantially late (over a month), gave no explanation for the delay, failed to comply with directions to file submissions and the intended appeal had no identifiable merits; further, leave under section 22(1)(b) HKCFAO was refused because no question of great general or public importance was identified and there was no basis under the 'or otherwise' limb to grant leave.
29 Aug 2022
Extension of time was refused because the applicant offered no adequate explanation for the delay, failed to demonstrate any arguable grounds or real prospect of success on appeal, and the underlying judicial review claim lacked merit; Form CALL-1 was properly served and the applicant had a duty to provide an address and to progress his case within the statutory period.
14 Mar 2022
Extension of time refused because delay of over 13 months was substantial, the applicant gave no satisfactory explanation for the delay, and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success as the judge properly refused leave to apply for judicial review; therefore granting an extension would be futile.
19 Nov 2021
The Court refused to extend time because the applicant's Notice of Motion was about two weeks late with no explanation and the intended appeal raised no question of great general or public importance and was unarguable, making an extension futile under its discretion in Cap.484 ss.24(5)-(6).
21 Nov 2019
The application for judicial review against the Director's Decisions is dismissed because, following appellate structure as explained in Re: Moshsin Ali, an immigration officer's decision is not susceptible to judicial review once an appeal to the Board is pursued; leave is granted against the Board's Decisions because the Board incorrectly treated itself as precluded from considering the merits when deciding whether to allow late filing under s.37ZT and thereby failed to exercise the required discretion.
12 Jul 2019
The application for extension of time and leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant was 12 days out of time, failed to identify any error in the Deputy Judge's refusal of leave, and there was no real prospect that the intended appeal would succeed after applying the four-factor test from Re: Rana Jaswant.
24 Jun 2008
The court held that BAR r.29(3) can convert a resubmission following a refusal under s.16(1)(i) into a fresh application so the 60-day limit in r.30(3)(a) applied; applying Peninsula Knitters, the second disapproval letter was within the operative time limit and Emperor had no reasonably arguable case for judicial review, so leave was refused.
17 Nov 1993
Continued detention of the respondents under section 32(4)(b) is justified because they are required witnesses and there is a realistic prospect they will give evidence in the near future; absent full argument on proposed alternatives, the court will grant a short limited extension and allow the Attorney General liberty to apply for further extensions with required evidence.