Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Statutory time limits

Legal area

Court

22 Apr 2026

KALAWILA WITHANAGE KALUM SIRI VITHANA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2046
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1606/2021

Extension of time was refused because the application was filed more than three months after the Board's Decision and the applicant failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success or any error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board's findings; accordingly the leave application was dismissed.
14 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 204
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1259/2025

Extension of time was refused and the leave application dismissed because the application was filed more than three months after the Board's decision, the applicant offered no adequate reason for the delay or any specific grounds demonstrating a realistic prospect of success, and the Board's findings on risk and internal relocation were within its primary fact-finding province and not shown to involve error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
10 Dec 2025

BAREND LTD v. THE COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1777
Court

District Court
Case number

DCSA14/2024

The court dismissed the s14(5B) leave application because the appellant failed to show any reasonable cause that prevented filing within the one‑month statutory period; dismissal of the postponement application made the duty immediately payable, and the three‑month delay in payment and further delay in applying for leave were unjustified such that extension should be refused.
2 Dec 2025

RE TIEU VAN THUYET

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1058
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV72/2023

Application for leave to appeal and extension of time was dismissed because the applicant failed to satisfactorily explain the delay, the issues raised were fact‑specific to his case and not of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b), many complaints were new points not previously argued and thus not appropriate at leave stage, and there was no demonstrated merit in alleged procedural unfairness or adverse credibility findings by the Board.
28 Nov 2025

RANA MD SHOHEL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1017
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP236/2024

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to show the intended appeal raised any question of great general or public importance as required by s22(1)(b) Cap 484, failed to demonstrate prospects of success, and filed the Notice of Motion outside the statutory 28-day period under s24 without an explanation; accordingly leave was refused and the motion dismissed.
10 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4664
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2257/2020

The application for leave failed because the Board lawfully concluded the applicant had not provided sufficient written evidence to justify reopening her non-refoulement claim under s.37ZG(3), no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality was shown, and the intended challenge was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.
4 Aug 2025

RE BIJU MATTHEW alias TOM THOMAS MATHEW alias ANTHONY SAVIEL alias JOHN GEORGE JOSEPH

Citation

[2025] HKCA 706
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV70/2025

The applicant's Form 86 was filed more than five months late without satisfactory explanation or particulars of error; given the substantial unexplained delay and absence of any reasonably arguable grounds demonstrating legal error, the court correctly refused to extend time and to grant leave because the intended judicial review lacked realistic prospects of success.
13 Jun 2025

ABBAS SADAQAT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2469
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2092/2024

Although the applicant's explanation for a 50-day delay (custody and difficulty raising court fees) was accepted as plausible, he failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision or to lodge proposed grounds of appeal; because there was no realistic prospect of success the court refused to extend time and dismissed the summons.
15 May 2025

RE DO VAN DONG

Citation

[2025] HKCA 448
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV380/2023

The notice of motion for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to comply with the statutory time limit and did not provide any adequate explanation for the delay, failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) HKCFAO, and there was no basis to grant leave under the 'or otherwise' limb or to extend time under s24(5).
6 Mar 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 912
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1263/2022

The application for extension and the leave application were refused because the delay was very substantial, the applicant provided an incredible and unreasoned claim of non-receipt despite frequent bi-weekly reporting to Immigration and correctly addressed dispatch of the decision, and established authorities permit refusal where many months of unexplained delay exist.