Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Procedure

Legal area

Court

25 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 822
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL336/2024

The Court dismissed the application for leave because the applicant voluntarily withdrew her application, there was no evidence of coercion, and there was no outstanding matter in the action; accordingly the Court acceded to the withdrawal and ordered dismissal, following the precedent that dismissal is appropriate where an applicant withdraws and nothing remains outstanding.
17 Dec 2024

RE MOHAMMAD KAMRAN

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1141
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV387/2022

The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance required by s22(1)(b) Cap 484, was debarred from relying on written submissions after breaching Registrar directions, and demonstrated no arguable error or alternative basis warranting leave under the "otherwise" limb.
26 Jan 2024

CHAN YAT CHUEN v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 345
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL204/2024

The court granted leave to apply for judicial review on the papers because the applicant met the threshold for arguable grounds; the matter should proceed to a substantive hearing with directions to be proposed jointly by the parties.
1 Aug 2023

AHMED ZEESHAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1880
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL437/2019

Extension of time refused because applicant was over two months late and failed to show any realistic prospect of success on the intended appeal; therefore no basis to extend time.
28 Dec 2022

RE DANIK DWI SUGIARTI

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3783
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL299/2022

Refuse extension because the five‑week delay was substantial and unexplained, the applicant failed to provide particulars or arguable grounds of appeal, did not attend the hearing, and there was no reasonable prospect of success, making extension futile.
25 Nov 2022

RE HUSSAIN SHABBIR

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1727
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP54/2022

The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance as required by section 22(1)(b) HKCFAO and failed to particularize or provide evidence of errors in the judgments below; the application was therefore without merit and fact-specific and did not warrant leave.
11 Nov 2022

黃國華 v. 中國移動電訊有限公司

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3331
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1127/2022

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to plead that he was detained or by what authority and failed to describe the nature of the restraint as required by Order 54 r 1(3); additionally the materials did not meet the formal requirements for a judicial review/leave application under Order 53 r 3 and therefore did not disclose a justiciable application.
16 Aug 2022

RE SHAHID MUHAMMAD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2362
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL947/2021

Extension of time was refused because the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success: the Board properly found the applicant's claim unsubstantiated due to his failure to attend and to provide explanation, and the court applied established extension factors (delay, reasons, prospects, prejudice) giving decisive weight to the prospect of success.
9 Aug 2022

LAM POON SHING 對歐陽浩榮暫委法官

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2410
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL681/2022

Because s28(3) of the Small Claims Tribunal Ordinance renders the Court in its refusal of leave decisions final, an application for judicial review challenging such a refusal is impermissible as a quasi-appeal and must be dismissed.
12 May 2022

RE ZAMAN ADIL

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1283
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL857/2018

Extension refused because the delay of over 13 months was inordinate, the applicant provided no satisfactory or corroborated reason for the delay, he failed to put forward any proper or reasonably arguable grounds of appeal or particulars of error, and consequently there was no prospect of success; granting an extension would be futile.