Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Right to oral hearing

Legal area

Court

8 Oct 2025

PRAMANICK SUKUMAR v. NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4649
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1099/2020

Where an applicant provided no additional facts or arguments specific to a BOR2 claim and the claim had been previously considered on other non-refoulement grounds, the NRCPO was entitled not to hold a further BOR2 hearing; therefore there was no breach of procedural fairness, no unlawful fettering of discretion and no irrationality, and the leave application was dismissed.
11 Apr 2025

RAI TIKA KUMARI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCA 311
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV387/2024

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, did not demonstrate any error in the CA judgment, the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success, and the record showed adequate language assistance and oral hearings where attended; failure to attend the CFI hearing justified determination on paper.
23 Dec 2024

AMANDEEP SINGH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3686
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1073/2021

Extension of time refused because the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay (he did not keep the court informed of his change of address) and he advanced no grounds of appeal with a real prospect of success, so the balance of factors did not justify granting an extension.
31 Oct 2023

RE ANA LUSIA

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1241
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP531/2022

Although the Judge erred in determining the leave application on paper despite the applicant's express request for an oral hearing under Order 53 r.3(3), extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant had indicated withdrawal of the judicial review and therefore extension would be futile and she had not satisfactorily explained the brief delay.
20 Sept 2023

RE MONDAL SUMITRA RANI

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1063
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP414/2022

The renewed application for extension of time to appeal was dismissed as futile because the applicant sought to withdraw the judicial review and had not satisfactorily explained the delay; additionally the Court of Appeal held that the judge erred in deciding the leave application on the papers where the applicant had expressly requested an oral hearing under Order 53 rule 3(3), and case management powers did not justify displacing that right.
20 Sept 2023

RE PERVIN JAHANARA

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1064
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP406/2022

The Judge erred in law by determining the leave application without an oral hearing despite the applicant's express request under Order 53 rule 3(3); the intended appeal therefore has a real prospect of success and extension of time to file the notice of appeal is granted.
15 Sept 2021

SANDHU AMANDEEP SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1295
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP104/2021

The Court refused the renewed application for extension of time and leave to appeal because the applicant provided no reasonable explanation for the delay, failed to identify any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness in the Deputy Judge's decision or the Board's decision, and the intended appeal had no real prospect of success given the Board's acceptance of facts and finding that state protection and internal relocation were viable.
7 May 2021

RE SAIDY LAMIN IA

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1322
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL921/2017

Although the applicant was out of time and offered an unsatisfactory explanation for delay, the court exercised its discretion to extend time for appeal because there was an arguable injustice in the manner applicants from foreign jurisdictions are informed of their right to request an oral hearing; balancing the criteria (delay, reasons, prospects, prejudice) the court granted a 14‑day extension to file the Notice of Appeal.
29 Apr 2021

RE PADIKKASU KASINATHAN

Citation

[2021] HKCA 596
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV275/2020

The application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any specific or arguable error in the Court of Appeal's judgment and did not raise any question of great general or public importance required by s22(1)(b) of Cap 484; procedural and hearing complaints had been considered and rejected on the merits.
22 Jan 2020

RE ALI MALIK USMAN

Citation

[2020] HKCA 73
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP193/2019

The one‑day delay was excused as minor but extension of time was refused because the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success: the applicant failed to identify any error in the Judge's reasoning or demonstrate prejudice from alleged procedural defects; the Board and Judge had properly considered the case and their decisions were not Wednesbury unreasonable, so leave to appeal out of time was futile and denied.