Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Article 3 hkboro

Legal area

Court

29 Aug 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2681
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL426/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to advance any reasonably arguable ground; the Adjudicator conducted a proper rehearing, applied the law correctly, afforded a fair hearing, and reached conclusions open on the evidence, so there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality to justify leave.
11 Apr 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1043
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL561/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to plead any reasonably arguable ground of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness; careful review of the papers disclosed no error of law or procedure and the Adjudicator's decision was open on the facts and eminently reasonable.
3 Jun 2021

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

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1556
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL996/2017

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to plead any reasonably arguable legal ground; the Adjudicator conducted a lawful and fair rehearing, applied the correct legal principles and made findings open to her on the facts, and the Director's decision is not reviewable after an appeal to the TCAB.
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.
2 Jul 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1423
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL765/2017

The court refused leave because there was no reasonably arguable basis for judicial review: the Adjudicator applied the correct law, afforded procedural fairness, engaged the applicant, and made fact-based findings open to him; accordingly there was no realistic prospect of success and leave was refused.
30 Jun 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1400
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL307/2018

The applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable ground of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or unfairness: the Adjudicator conducted a rehearing, provided an interpreter, allowed the applicant to answer questions, applied the correct legal principles and reached a decision open on the facts; therefore there was no realistic prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
26 Jun 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1346
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1626/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality by the Director or the Adjudicator; both decision-makers applied the correct legal tests, considered the evidence and made findings of fact open to them, so there was no realistic prospect of success for judicial review.
23 Jun 2020

HOSSAIN MOHAMMAD ALAMGIR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1329
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1554/2018

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Adjudicator's decision; the Adjudicator's credibility findings and factual conclusions were open to her and the applicant effectively sought a rehearing rather than a grounded judicial review.
9 Jun 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1148
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL207/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness; the Adjudicator conducted a fair rehearing, applied the law correctly and made findings open on the evidence, and the Director's decision is not reviewable once the TCAB has reheard the appeal.
19 May 2020

SAIDY LAMIN IA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 855
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL921/2017

There was no reasonably arguable basis for judicial review because the Adjudicator conducted a proper rehearing, afforded procedural fairness, made detailed and open findings including adverse credibility findings and did not commit any error of law or procedure; therefore leave to apply for judicial review must be refused.