Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Timeliness of appeal

Legal area

Court

7 Jun 2023

LUU DINH QUAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1489
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1465/2021

Extension of time was refused and leave dismissed because the applicant was more than five months late without satisfactory explanation, failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director’s or Board’s decisions, and did not meet the statutory s37ZO threshold for a subsequent claim; therefore there was no reasonable prospect of success and no good reason to extend time.
26 Aug 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2051
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1600/2018

Leave was granted because there was an arguable basis for judicial review: absence of evidence that the Decision was served on the applicant (despite deemed service via Duty Lawyer Service) and absence of clear indication that the Adjudicator considered the substantive material on the BOR2 claim created a realistic prospect of success on grounds of procedural unfairness or failure to consider relevant material.
19 Dec 2019

梁妙儀對嶺南大學

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 3088
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA25/2017

The leave application was out of time (deemed service 16 Sep 2017; application filed 26 Sep 2017) and, independently, had no arguable merit because the employment contract expressly authorised termination during the probationary period on one month's notice or payment in lieu which the respondent paid; therefore there was no basis to overturn the tribunal's decision and the leave application was dismissed.
28 Jun 2019

DALJIT BOPARAI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1653
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL615/2017

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground or realistic prospect of success: the Director's decision on torture risk was reasonable and the Board reasonably concluded the applicant provided no cogent reason for the delay in filing the appeal, so there was no procedural unfairness or error of law.
30 Oct 2018

RE ASGHAR ADNAN

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2392
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL972/2017

The application for leave to appeal out of time was refused because the applicant failed to show any reasonably arguable ground or real prospect of success in a judicial review, the 14‑day appeal period had elapsed without adequate justification, and the fresh allegations advanced were irrelevant to the reasons for the original refusal.
4 Sept 2017

HKSAR v. OKETA SUNDAY BASIL

Citation

HKSAR v. OKETA SUNDAY BASIL
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC18/2017

Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the applicant failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for being more than five and a half months late in applying contrary to s83Q CPO; on the merits, the forfeiture was properly ordered because the US$2,000 was plainly used in connection with the trafficking offence and the applicant had withdrawn his objection at the trial judge level, so there was no basis to upset the forfeiture.
19 May 2010

FUJI XEROX (HONG KONG) LTD v. STARA PRODUCTIONS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

FUJI XEROX (HONG KONG) LTD v. STARA PRODUCTIONS LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3602/2009

The court refused further adjournment because the defendants had exhausted the court's indulgence and gave inadequate explanation for delay, and refused leave to appeal out of time because the Notice of Appeal was filed late without a valid explanation; accordingly the defendants' summons dated 23 March 2010 was dismissed and costs were awarded to the Plaintiff.
5 Sept 2001

HKSAR v. CHENG PUI MAN, DICKY

Citation

HKSAR v. CHENG PUI MAN, DICKY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA651/2001

The real danger test applies; the magistrate did not err in refusing a trial de novo because she expressly dismissed the evidence of prior convictions from her mind, the disclosure did not reveal the actual prior offences, and on the whole of the evidence there was no real danger of bias; appeal dismissed and conviction upheld.