Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Time limitation

Legal area

Court

12 May 2026

NGUYEN HONG TRANG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2594
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1414/2022

The leave application was dismissed because it was filed out of time and, in any event, the proposed challenge to the Board's decision lacked reasonable arguability — the Board applied correct legal principles, made open findings on credibility and state protection, and its decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally unfair; the Director's earlier decision was superseded by the Board decision and not separately reviewable.
14 Jan 2026

LUU NGOC QUYET v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 242
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2889/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the application was time-barred and the Form 86 failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law grounds; further, prosecutorial decisions of the kind challenged are not justiciable except on a ground of unconstitutionality, which was not pleaded.
20 Aug 2024

羅健信對香港特別行政區政府 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2102
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL199/2024

The permission application was refused because the claim lacked reasonable arguability, targeted judicial decisions/actions not amenable to judicial review due to judicial independence, and was not brought within the statutory three‑month period; accordingly permission to apply for judicial review was denied.
9 May 2024

MALKIT SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1242
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL625/2019

Leave was dismissed because the application was not made within the mandatory time limit and no explanation for the serious delay was provided, the Applicant failed to show that the Board erred in concluding there was insufficient evidence to re-open the withdrawn SCF, and the Applicant's removal from Hong Kong meant the claim was treated as withdrawn under s37ZF(1).
2 Jan 2024

HKSAR v. LAI CHEE YING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 58
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC51/2022

The application is dismissed because it impermissibly seeks to re‑open a point already decided; the court found no ambiguity in the prior Ruling and held Count 1 alleges a single continuing conspiracy so the six‑month limitation under ss 11 and 159D runs from cessation of the conspiracy; the application therefore lacks merit and is an abuse of process.
30 Nov 2022

李鴻發 v. 香港警務處 AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3440
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL542/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the CSB had no involvement so claims against it failed in limine; the application against the Police Force was out of time and the Applicant failed to identify any grounds of review; and on the merits there was no apparent arguable failure to comply with public law requirements. Costs were awarded to the Police Force and summarily assessed at HK$25,000.
17 Jun 2014

LAM YUK CHEUNG t/a CORBIERES WINE COMPANY v. MAISON RIVIERE FILS

Citation

LAM YUK CHEUNG t/a CORBIERES WINE COMPANY v. MAISON RIVIERE FILS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1364/2012

The defendant had filed an unqualified defence, amended pleadings, appeared in court, provided discovery and answered particulars without reservation; objectively those acts constituted a voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the Hong Kong court, rendering the defendant out of time under Order 12 r 8(2) to seek a stay; therefore the stay summons was dismissed.
12 Jan 2012

RE SZETO CYNTHIA

Citation

RE SZETO CYNTHIA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV233/2011

The appeal is dismissed because the Commissioner had lawfully conducted the statutory examination and concluded it; the applicant failed to show the alleged interception was carried out by a specified department under the Ordinance so the statutory scheme did not apply; the judicial review challenge was time-barred and, in any event, the case was unarguable and lacked realistic prospects of success.
3 Oct 2006

BOLD DRAGON SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER v. NEWAY SHIPPING LTD t/a SHING GE FAT SHIPYARD AND OTHERS

Citation

BOLD DRAGON SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER v. NEWAY SHIPPING LTD t/a SHING GE FAT SHIPYARD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ67/2004

The strike out application failed because the applicability of the Ordinance and the factual question whether the barge was at fault are in dispute and require substantial factual and legal investigation; the limitation defence was not shown to be clearly dispositive and the matter is unsuitable for summary disposal, so the action must proceed to trial.
17 May 2004

FAR EAST DRUG (B.V.I.) CO LTD v. FIRST PACIFIC CO LTD

Citation

FAR EAST DRUG (B.V.I.) CO LTD v. FIRST PACIFIC CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL41/2003

The contractual phrase 'months' in Clause 8(D) is to be read as calendar months measured as 'clear' or 'full' months rather than by the corresponding date rule or as lunar months; the clause is a time‑barring provision for the defendant's benefit and should be construed to give as much time as the language admits. Applying that construction the plaintiff's letter dated 6 June 2003 was within the contractual deadline and the claim is not time‑barred.