Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Procedural time limits

Legal area

Court

13 May 2026

NGUYEN VAN TIEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2734
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1697/2021

The leave application was dismissed because it was filed more than 47 months out of time with no explanation so no extension of time was warranted, and in any event the claim had become otiose because the applicant withdrew and confirmed it was safe to return to Vietnam; the applicant's withdrawal was not allowed to leave the action at large and the court proceeded to dismiss the leave application.
24 Apr 2026

EMESIANI EBUKA CHRISTOPHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2128
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL471/2021

Extension refused: although the delay was short, the applicant's explanation for missing the 14-day limit was unsatisfactory and the intended appeal lacked merit and was not reasonably arguable; prospect of success being central, there was no basis to grant an extension.
22 Apr 2026

HASAN MEHEDI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1831
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1266/2025

Refusal of extension of time: the short delay (7 days) did not justify an extension because the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success—the Director and the Board found the claim unsubstantiated, the applicant failed to comply with Form 86 to request a hearing or to demonstrate non-receipt of the Court's decision—therefore extension was refused and the application dismissed.
25 Mar 2026

TUMANDAO MARYFLOR ANGCO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1656
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL135/2022

The applicant failed to explain the delay and failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospect of success in the intended judicial review; therefore extension of time to appeal was refused and the summons dismissed.
25 Mar 2026

ANDRY WELIYANTO AKSA JULIAN TOBY (a minor) by RINA MULYANI, his next friend v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1652
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL26/2020

The summons for extension of time was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay and failed to demonstrate any specific or particularised grounds showing a reasonable prospect of success in the intended judicial review; general template allegations were insufficient, therefore no extension of time was justified.
10 Mar 2026

HARDEEP SINGH v. NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1325
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1338/2021

Extension of time to file Form 86 was refused and leave to apply for judicial review dismissed because the applicant failed to set out any arguable grounds or provide an adequate explanation for the delay, and the Board's decision withstood anxious scrutiny and showed no illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety.
5 Mar 2026

TANG YISU 對 SUNGUARD SECURITY CO LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCA 381
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP11/2025

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to show any reasonable prospect of success or any legal error in the judge's discretionary costs orders and produced no credible evidence to justify recusal; the applicant also pursued the wrong procedural route and therefore the application was without merit.
3 Mar 2026

YENI ANDRIANI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1257
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1929/2020

Extension of time refused because applicant provided no satisfactory explanation for delay and no arguable grounds demonstrating a reasonable prospect of success in the intended judicial review; under the established tests and authorities a hopeless appeal will not be permitted out of time.
11 Feb 2026

MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 855
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2116/2025

Extension refused because applicant gave no valid explanation for delay (ignorance and imprisonment not sufficient), confirmed he had no additional information before the Board and did not seek adjournment, relied on fresh evidence not before the Board which is inadmissible at this stage, and there was no reasonable prospect of success in the intended appeal.
21 Jan 2026

MANUDEN JAMES JR. COLLALONG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 27
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1084/2025

Extension of time was refused because the applicant offered no valid reason for the delay, the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success given the Board's finding that the claim was unsubstantiated and internal relocation was viable, and therefore the balance of factors did not justify granting an extension.