Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Service and notification

Legal area

Court

2 Dec 2022

LAMA RINA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1759
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP140/2020

The applicant failed to show good grounds to extend the time for seeking leave to appeal because she did not particularise or substantiate her asserted detention or assistance failures, she failed to maintain an effective address for service, and the Court of Appeal had sufficiently explained its refusal; there was no question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b), therefore leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused.
3 Mar 2022

GOLDIN EQUITIES LTD v. PERSONS STATED IN SCHEDULE I TO THE ORIGINATING SUMMONS FILED ON 23RD JUNE 2021

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 740
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP871/2021

The court concluded that the applicant holds the unclaimed cash and securities on trust, that it had made sustained and reasonable efforts to notify and return assets, that further delay was not justified given continuing uncertainty from COVID-19 and the limited number of clients likely still to claim, and that in the exceptional prevailing circumstances leave should be granted under section 62 for the applicant to pay the unclaimed cash and physical share certificates into court subject to specified public and direct notifications and compliance with Order 92.
12 Mar 2019

HALDER REKHA RANI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 166
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL135/2017

Extension of time was refused because the applicant had been properly notified of the refusal of leave and failed to provide any credible or particular reason for the delay in lodging the appeal.
27 Jul 2018

UDEH DOMINIC ONYEMAECHI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1683
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL785/2017

Leave to apply to extend time was refused because the applicant provided no explanation for the delay, did not seek an extension of time, and no good reason was put before the court; time for the judicial review ran from the Adjudicator's decision on 7 July 2017, and the application was therefore out of time.
28 May 2004

RE:S

Citation

RE:S
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1287/2004

The court held that applications under Part II of the Mental Health Ordinance require fuller information than the statutory minimum; medical certificates must be current and comply with ss.2(2),7(5) and 7(6) (including at least one certificate by an HA‑approved practitioner); applicants must present evidence on the MIP's welfare, life expectancy, costs of future care, property occupancy/income, proposed management and, where sale is sought, valuation and proposed mode of sale; the court will usually require notification of interested parties and will assess the suitability and need for securi…

Hong Kong Case Law

LAMA RINA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER

GOLDIN EQUITIES LTD v. PERSONS STATED IN SCHEDULE I TO THE ORIGINATING SUMMONS FILED ON 23RD JUNE 2021

HALDER REKHA RANI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

UDEH DOMINIC ONYEMAECHI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

RE:S