Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prospect of success assessment

Legal area

Court

20 May 2026

SAJAN MASIH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2843
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1378/2025

Extension of time refused because delay was minimal (one day), the Court's decision had been sent to the applicant's last known address and was not returned (deemed served), the applicant offered no valid or credible reason to excuse the delay, and the intended appeal lacked realistic prospect of success; accordingly no basis to extend time.
1 Apr 2026

PUTHIYA THARAVATTIL SAJITH KUMAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1635
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1136/2025

Extension of time was refused because the applicant's delay exceeded two months, the stated reason of having moved did not excuse the failure to update his address, the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success given the Board's adverse credibility finding, and there was no valid ground to challenge the Board's decision; accordingly the application was dismissed.
11 Mar 2026

MEHMOOD IRFAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1194
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1952/2020

Refusal of extension of time was warranted because the applicant provided no reason for the 5‑day delay and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success; applying the established four-factor test, these conclusions justified dismissal of the out‑of‑time appeal application.
12 Dec 2024

DEJUMO MARK MICHAEL REJUSO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3483
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL304/2019

Extension refused because delay of more than nine months was inordinate and unjustified, the applicant failed to provide draft grounds or particularise any error in the refusal decision, and therefore there was no real prospect of success making an extension futile.
30 Nov 2023

郭文英對連秋興先生及其他人

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1632
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5350/2017

The court refused to extend the time for filing the appeals because the delays were very long, the explanations for delay were inadequate, the proposed appeals had no real prospect of success on the merits, and allowing extension would cause prejudice to the respondent; accordingly the out-of-time appeals were refused, the appeals themselves would be dismissed on the merits, the absolute charging order was upheld, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the third defendant's costs to be assessed summarily.
10 Oct 2023

SHAKEEL AWAIS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1107
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP287/2023

The Court refused the extension of time because the applicant failed to identify any legal or procedural error in the judge's refusal of leave, his intended appeal had no real prospect of success, and therefore extension would be futile; the judge properly exercised discretion to determine the leave application on paper.
31 Aug 2023

SUSILAWATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2199
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL143/2022

Extension of time to appeal was refused because the delay was inordinate (more than one year), the applicant offered no credible evidence or explanation for the delay, failed to present draft grounds or identify errors of law or procedural unfairness, and therefore the intended appeal had no real prospect of success; granting extension would be futile.
19 Jun 2023

RE AHMED KHAWAJA

Citation

[2023] HKCA 773
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP245/2022

The Court refused the extension of time because the applicant's delay was substantial, he failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for not receiving the JR Decision despite it being sent to his last reported address, and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success given the Board's findings were fact-based, supported by evidence and not Wednesbury-unreasonable; granting an extension would be futile.
17 Jan 2023

RE RINIWATI SURONGKU

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 78
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1207/2018

Extension of time refused because the applicant was delayed for approximately 1 year 9 months without good reason and there was no realistic prospect of success on the intended appeal given the Board's finding that the non-refoulement claim was speculative and unsubstantiated.
16 Jun 2022

RE ELOK PASMAWATI

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1698
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL10/2019

Refusal to extend time because the applicant had an inordinate three-month delay without a satisfactory explanation (duty to notify change of address not discharged) and because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error or grounds giving a reasonable prospect of success in the intended appeal; therefore extension would be futile.