Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Undue delay

Legal area

Court

26 Mar 2026

MONSES MAYBELYN PACUBAS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1623
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1230/2022

The application was refused because the applicant was approximately eight months out of time and failed to show good reason to extend the statutory period; moreover the proposed grounds were not reasonably arguable and the TCAB decision disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality (the TCAB made credible findings and applied correct legal principles), so leave was refused and the substantive application dismissed.
20 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 948
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL783/2021

Application refused because it was grossly out of time (approximately 26 months) without an adequate explanation; the substantive application lacked arguability as the TCAB properly applied the law, made credible findings that applicant's evidence was not credible and that internal relocation reduced risk to very low; extension would prejudice administration and therefore no good reason to extend time or grant leave.
24 Dec 2025

RAKESH KUMAR v. NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5722
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1435/2020

The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to show good reason to extend time after an 18‑month delay, failed to identify reasonably arguable grounds in the Form 86, and the prejudice to public administration and the putative respondent outweighed any claim to relief even where arguable issues on the merits existed; accordingly leave was refused and the Form 86 amended to correctly identify parties.
1 Sept 2025

POOSAALA RAM PRASAD v. THE HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCA 789
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV466/2021

The Decision was final and not interlocutory, so leave to appeal was not required; alternatively, even if leave were required, the appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or any other reason in the interests of justice to hear the appeal; the taxing master's exercise of discretion on undue delay and printing charges was not plainly wrong and the costs awarded to the respondent (HK$80,000) were appropriate.
12 Aug 2024

POOSAALA RAM PRASAD v. THE HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCA 746
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV466/2021

The review was dismissed for non-compliance with Order 62 r33(3) except as to copying charges where fresh evidence (Exhibit B) established the bundle had 302 pages; interest was disallowed for the period 24 July 2023 to 3 March 2024 for undue delay; copying charges awarded at $1,610.67 after 2/3 discount for litigant in person; total taxed costs after review certified at $4,696.67; plaintiff ordered to bear 90% of defendant's costs of the review assessed summarily at $35,850.
29 Jun 2023

HKSAR v. CHEN KEEN (alias JACK CHEN) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1719
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC309/2019

The judge held the defence failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that a fair trial is impossible or that continuation would constitute an abuse of process; remedial measures (ordering prosecution to call or tender two witnesses, providing prior transcripts to witnesses, use of MLA) mitigate prejudice from delay and memory loss; previous detailed analysis by DHCJ Bruce supporting retrial fairness was persuasive; therefore stay refused.
23 Oct 2019

HKSAR v. APELETE KOKOU AFLA

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1189
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC176/2017

The Court held that the repeated failure by the applicant's then solicitor and counsel to comply with clear court directions, and the prolonged undue delay in filing required waiver/affirmation and making inquiries of prior trial representatives, amounted to serious professional misconduct/wasted costs under s.18 CCCO; a compensatory order was therefore appropriate and was quantified and equally apportioned between the former counsel and solicitor; the LAD and its officer were not liable. The Court also imposed binding duties on fresh appellate representatives to make independent enquiries, o…
27 Sept 2018

A v. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS BOARD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2205
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL221/2017

The application for leave to appeal was refused because there was undue delay in seeking judicial review and the proposed grounds of appeal were not reasonably arguable; accordingly the AAB's decision did not offend public law principles or fairness and leave must be refused.
4 Sept 2018

A v. Administrative Appeals Board

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2029
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL221/2017

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the AAB's conclusion that the disclosure was within the original purpose (safeguarding the child's welfare) was open to it and therefore no contravention of DPP3 was reasonably arguable; alternatively the s58 exemption applied; the application was also late, the applicant failed to disclose related civil proceedings and the case amounted to a merits re‑run rather than a proper public law challenge.
2 Aug 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1776
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1160/2017

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant's complaints were not reasonably arguable and he had no realistic prospects of success: the 2012 torture decision could not now be challenged after undue delay and failure to exhaust appeal rights; the Director's 2016 and 2017 decisions and the Board's rehearing were reached on a proper basis with no procedural unfairness, adequate opportunities were afforded, credibility and COI findings were supportable, and the decisions were not Wednesbury unreasonable.