Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Time limits for judicial review

Legal area

Court

26 Nov 2025

林崇發 v. 何紹銘

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5627
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2450/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify an identifiable impugned decision or any arguable public law ground, the matter was out of time by over two years with no explanation to extend time, the applicant had pursued and obtained an alternative remedy in the Small Claims Tribunal, and the court lacks power to lay or amend criminal charges as sought.
2 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4468
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1732/2020

The court amended the Form 86 to correct parties, examined the TCAB decision and the materials and, finding no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and that an oral hearing was not required, concluded there was no basis to grant leave and dismissed the application.
23 Jan 2025

翁潔美 v. 房屋署

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 290
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL47/2025

Dismissal was required because the applicant failed to identify the date or form of the impugned Housing Department decision, failed to specify the relief sought or grounds on Form 86, did not demonstrate promptness within the three-month limit, and had an apparent available alternative remedy (Appeal Tribunal (Housing)); there were no reasonably arguable public law grounds with a realistic prospect of success.
18 Jun 2024

LE CHI DUNG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2024] HKCA 532
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV353/2023

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to advance any reasonably arguable ground for judicial review, the proper remedy was a statutory appeal which the applicant initiated but validly and informedly withdrew rendering the Board functus officio, and the application was time‑barred; accordingly the Court will not review the Director's decision in these circumstances.
30 Jan 2024

RE BUI THI HOA

Citation

[2024] HKCA 115
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP308/2023

Extension of time was refused because the applicant was out of time, offered no adequate explanation for the delay, and the intended appeal was hopeless on its merits (no fresh evidence or arguable error of law), so granting an extension would be futile.
23 Sept 2021

MADBAR AKTER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2859
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1656/2020

Leave was refused because the application was brought out of time without satisfactory explanation, the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions, the Board validly accepted the applicant's withdrawal (rendering it functus officio), and the Director/Board lawfully and reasonably found the risk localized with internal relocation and state protection available, so there was no prospect of success.
14 Jun 2019

RE RAHMAN ABDUR

Citation

[2019] HKCA 629
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV369/2018

The application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify a question of great general or public importance as required by s22(1)(b) Cap 484; attempted grounds were either new and not raised below or time‑barred; and the irrationality ground was too vague and lacked particulars and was therefore not reasonably arguable.
26 Feb 2019

RE RAHMAN ABDUR

Citation

[2019] HKCA 204
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV369/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was rightly refused because the Director and the Board had considered the Taliban threat and COI, the Board's adverse credibility findings were open to it on the evidence, there was no error of law or procedural unfairness, the decisions satisfied the enhanced Wednesbury test and the applicant had no realistic prospect of success.
21 Nov 2018

RE IFTEKHAR ZAMADER

Citation

[2018] HKCA 821
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV317/2018

The Court held the second leave application was filed out of time, the applicant had not obtained the requisite leave to appeal under section 14AA, and the second identical application constituted an abuse of the court process; accordingly leave to appeal was refused, the Notice of Appeal was struck out and the appeal dismissed.
1 Mar 2007

WONG YU CHO ROLLY t/a MARCO POLO and CHINA OVERSEA TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT v. INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT

Citation

WONG YU CHO ROLLY t/a MARCO POLO and CHINA OVERSEA TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT v. INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL15/2007

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the tax assessments had been determined by court judgment and upheld on appeal (precluding JR), trespass is a private law matter to be pursued in District Court, the s76 notices were lawfully issued and the application was out of time, and the IRD's failure to reply to a settlement offer did not constitute a final reviewable decision.