Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Time limits and extensions

Legal area

Court

19 Dec 2025

TRAN THU HA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6266
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2378/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal or procedural errors in the TCAB Decision, the TCAB had applied correct legal principles and made entitled factual findings, and the application was out of time with no satisfactory explanation for an extension of time.
6 Jan 2025

ALI ZULFIQAR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 175
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2458/2024

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements for leave (no grounds specified and no verifying affidavit), and the application was filed out of time without explanation or any application for an extension of time; additionally, no reasonably arguable public law grounds with a realistic prospect of success were identified.
21 Nov 2022

邱 v. 徐

Citation

[2022] HKFC 249
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC5461/2014

The summons was dismissed because the petitioner failed to request reasons within the 14‑day period under O62 r34(4) and failed to apply to a judge within 14 days after the taxing master's certificate as required by O62 r35(2); extensions were not sought or justified and habitual non‑observance of time limits justified refusal to grant an extension; consequently there was no entitlement to review on the merits and the summons must be dismissed with costs following the event.
27 Jul 2021

RE RESHAM

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1081
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV579/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused and the appeal dismissed because the application was more than three months late without explanation and the Director lawfully refused permission for a subsequent non-refoulement claim under section 37ZO (no significant change and no realistic prospect of success); no error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness was shown.
22 Jun 2020

THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER v. TSE HAO YUE, POLLY

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1355
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP388/2020

Leave was granted because the Registry closure during the General Adjournment Period constituted a good reason for the short delay, investigations were impeded by the respondent's non-cooperation, there was a prima facie case of serious conduct justifying disqualification proceedings, and no prejudice to the respondent was demonstrated; accordingly the court exercised its discretion to allow the Official Receiver to issue proceedings out of time.

Hong Kong Case Law

TRAN THU HA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

ALI ZULFIQAR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

邱 v. 徐

RE RESHAM

THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER v. TSE HAO YUE, POLLY