Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Article 3 cat

Legal area

Court

26 Sept 2024

DEWEY ALICE SITO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2572
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL569/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because the Board lawfully and reasonably assessed the Applicant's unparticularised evidence, found no substantial grounds for real risk of ill-treatment, committed no error of law or procedural unfairness, and the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.
16 Aug 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2154
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1233/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board and Director correctly applied the law, their findings that the risk to the applicant was low, that the ill-treatment did not meet the minimum severity for Article 3/torture, that state protection was available and that internal relocation was viable were supported by evidence and were not legally erroneous, procedurally unfair or Wednesbury unreasonable; the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospects of success.
13 May 2024

KOMPANNAGE CHANDRA FONSEKA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1163
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1310/2019

Leave was refused because the court found no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision: the Board permissibly considered the written materials, reasonably drew adverse inferences from the applicant's refusal to give oral evidence, and its findings that past ill-treatment was low intensity and that state protection and internal relocation were viable did not amount to Wednesbury unreasonableness.
13 Nov 2020

EHSAAN MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2913
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL765/2017

The summons for an extension of time was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay, failed to maintain a reliable address for service, and the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success because the underlying judicial review application lacked any ascertainable grounds; accordingly extension would not be in the interests of justice.
28 Oct 2020

HERMININGSIH SUCIPTO AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2756
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1044/2017

The applicants failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay and the intended appeal had no arguable merit; balancing the length and reason for delay against the absence of underlying grounds, granting an extension would not be in the interests of justice, therefore the summons for extension of time is dismissed.
26 Aug 2020

IQBAL QAMAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2047
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL254/2018

Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to provide any explanation for the delay (and had allowed correspondence to remain unclaimed), the underlying proposed grounds lacked merit and did not disclose an arguable judicial review case distinct from a merits appeal, and therefore, weighing delay, reasons, merits and prejudice, it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension.
15 Aug 2019

ALI HASNAIN v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2023
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL827/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant's complaints were not reasonably arguable: the Adjudicator conducted adequate inquiry, afforded the Applicant opportunities to present and elaborate his case, the credibility and factual findings (including absence of state involvement and availability of internal relocation) were supported by reasons and were not Wednesbury-unreasonable, and there was no procedural unfairness or error of law.
15 Mar 2019

NWACHUKWU IYKE UZOMA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 734
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL928/2017

Although the short delay was explained as due to lack of procedural knowledge, the underlying judicial review application had no arguable grounds and, balancing length and reason for delay against merits and interests of justice, an extension of time to appeal was refused and the summons dismissed.
1 Feb 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCA 136
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV501/2018

The judge did not err in refusing leave because the applicant failed to advance viable, particularised grounds demonstrating errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality by the Board; the applicant's complaints were broad, vague and unsupported by evidence, included fresh arguments not raised below, and the applicant failed to comply with directions so the appeal was properly considered on paper; accordingly there was no prospect of success and the appeal is dismissed.
17 Dec 2013

SHAFQAT, ALI v. BETTY KWAN

Citation

SHAFQAT, ALI v. BETTY KWAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL74/2012

The Court held that because the Adjudicator's dismissal of the petition was founded on adverse credibility findings that were central to the decision and were not adequately explored on the papers, high standards of fairness required an oral hearing; the absence of such a hearing rendered the Substantive Decision unlawful and it was set aside and remitted for reconsideration with an oral hearing. The court found no legal error in the Adjudicator's approach to the standard of proof or the concept of acquiescence on the facts but procedural unfairness alone warranted setting aside the decision.