Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Adequacy of reasons

Legal area

Court

18 May 2026

VILLEGAS MELONIE BUSANTE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2167
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL931/2022

Having applied rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, the court concluded the Board applied the correct legal test, properly considered the evidence and country‑of‑origin information, and provided adequate reasons; there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and therefore no reasonably arguable ground with a realistic prospect of success — leave is dismissed.
8 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1618
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1391/2020

The application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the Form 86 contained no reasonably arguable grounds, the TCAB/NRCPO and NRCPO decisions showed no public law error or procedural unfairness, the Director's decisions were not susceptible to review after appeal, and the application in respect of the TCAB decision was unduly delayed with no good reason to extend time; the court corrected the Form 86 date administratively.
19 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1403
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL373/2022

The applicant's bare assertion of ongoing risk did not disclose an arguable ground of legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's well-reasoned decision; applying the enhanced but deferential review applicable to non-refoulement cases, the court concluded the challenge lacked realistic prospects and refused leave.
20 Feb 2026

JUTHE CHHETRI v. PERMANENT SECRETARY FOR SECURITY

Citation

[2026] HKCA 213
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV247/2025

The Court found no error in the Leave Decision: the PS for S provided adequate reasons by way of Minute M.1, the applicant's family circumstances were considered and any balancing of humanitarian factors falls within executive discretion, and therefore the appeal must be dismissed.
7 Jan 2026

RICH ENGINEERING LTD v. FIRE SERVICE INSTALLATION CONTRACTORS DISCIPLINARY BOARD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 35
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP803/2024

The Board provided adequate reasons and properly reconsidered the totality of sentence in light of convictions set aside; the Board lawfully exercised its discretion on concurrent and consecutive removal orders and the overall removal period fell within the reasonable range of options for disciplinary sanction; the appeal is therefore dismissed and no reduction of the removal order was warranted.
19 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4366
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL865/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the application was unduly delayed with no good reason to extend time, the pleaded complaints failed the arguability/realistic prospect threshold or were non-justiciable (including that Director's decisions were not reviewable after appeal), the NRCPO correctly applied the statutory regime for late filing and the substantive case (BOR 2 risk) was implausible and unsupported by evidence, such that there was no realistic prospect of relief.
2 Sept 2025

MOHAMMED IMRAN HOSSAIN v. NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3932
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL715/2020

Applicant was 18 days out of time with no explanation; the NRCPO Decision was supported by adequate inquiry, evidence and reasons and involved factual findings properly open to it; on merits the application lacked substance; therefore no extension of time should be granted and the leave application must be dismissed.
30 Jun 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2059
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL207/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Director's decision was not open to challenge once appeal to the Board was pursued; the Board applied enhanced scrutiny, made credibility and risk assessments based on inconsistencies and lack of evidence of personal risk, state acquiescence, or impossibility of internal relocation, and provided adequate reasons for its conclusions.
16 Apr 2025

JUTHE CHHETRI v. PERMANENT SECRETARY FOR SECURITY

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1568
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL612/2025

The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law error: adequate reasons for the refusal were contained in internal minute M.1 provided to the applicant, the PS for S lawfully considered family and humanitarian factors and legitimately concluded they did not justify suspension or rescission of the lifelong deportation order, and any further challenge would amount to a merits review rather than a public law critique.
2 Apr 2025

ABBAS RAEES v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCA 286
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP207/2024

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, failed to identify any error in the Court of Appeal judgment or any viable ground of appeal, and the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success; there was no basis under the 'or otherwise' limb of s 22(1)(b).