Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Administrative decision-making

Legal area

Court

27 Mar 2026

VU THI THANH THUY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1370
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL56/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to particularise any arguable public law ground; the Board had afforded opportunity to be heard, properly assessed evidence and COI, and its conclusions showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, so the intended JR was not reasonably arguable.
14 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4660
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1954/2020

Leave dismissed because the applicant failed to show any reasonably arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB decision; the TCAB applied correct principles and its conclusions were within the range of reasonable outcomes.
17 May 2023

MAZI ALI HOSSAIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1299
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1376/2019

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to particularise any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness; the Director and Board lawfully assessed the risk as low, identified available state protection and reasonable internal relocation, and there was no basis for the court to intervene on judicial review; additionally the applicant confirmed he no longer feared return to Bangladesh.
30 Nov 2021

RE LUU THI TUYET LAN

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3541
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1149/2018

Extension of time was refused because there was a substantial unexplained delay, the applicant failed to update her address and provide credible evidence explaining the delay, and the intended judicial review had no reasonable prospect of success because the claimed risk amounted at most to a remote risk insufficient to attract non-refoulement protection; any procedural irregularity by TCAB would not have produced a different result and therefore does not justify quashing or extension.
23 Sept 2019

RE SHARMA RAHUL

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2204
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL191/2018

The court framed its reasoning around established judicial review principles — legality, rationality (Wednesbury) and proportionality — assessing whether the impugned decision fell within lawful discretion; the provided text does not disclose the court's final dispositive conclusion.
4 Dec 2018

GARDIOLA JEANE LAGAC v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD /NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2217
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL952/2017

Extension of time was refused because the applicant filed Form 86 105 days late, provided no explanation or supporting evidence for the delay or for the original failure to submit the NCF, and failed to demonstrate real prospects of success such as would justify the exercise of the court's discretion to extend time; accordingly the out‑of‑time application was dismissed.
17 Jul 2018

AMIENGHEMHEN AYERE PRECIOUS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1537
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL659/2017

The adjudicator lawfully and reasonably determined the BOR 2 appeal on the papers without an oral hearing because the applicant had previously had a hearing before the same adjudicator, the only additional material was hearsay and insubstantial, there were no disputed facts or new credible evidence requiring oral testimony, and there was no real risk to life; accordingly the application for leave to apply for judicial review was not reasonably arguable and leave was refused.
23 Mar 1990

CHAN YIK TUNG v. THE HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORIY

Citation

CHAN YIK TUNG v. THE HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORIY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2111/1989

Where the decision-maker's uncontradicted evidence shows the alleged irrelevant factor was merely disclosed as background and there is no evidence it influenced the decision, court will not infer improper consideration; accordingly the notice to quit stood and judicial review failed.