Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Best interests of the child

Legal area

Court

18 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2807
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL844/2022

Leave was refused because the Board's decision showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the Board lawfully and reasonably assessed the evidence against the USM threshold and its factual findings are within its exclusive remit, so the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.
22 Apr 2026

PURNAMASARI YULI acting as guardian ad litem of YULI PURNAMASARI SEINA YUKARI GASHEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2029
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1310/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success or arguable public law error: the Board reasonably found state protection, welfare and education would be available in Indonesia, language and relocation issues were resolvable, and there was no basis for upsetting the Board's factual findings.
15 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1951
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1162/2020

Leave was refused because the applicants had no reasonable prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings on the parents' core factual account were sustainable, no separate child-specific non-refoulement grounds were shown, internal relocation was found viable, and the parents confirmed they had presented the children's issues to the Board; procedural non-compliance was a mere irregularity not vitiating the minors' applications.
20 Mar 2026

KAMRAN JAVID v. PERMANENT SECRETARY FOR SECURITY

Citation

[2026] HKCA 415
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV250/2023

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the intended grounds were mere re‑runs of arguments already considered and rejected by this Court, were fact‑specific and lacked any question of great general or public importance, and in any event the grounds lacked arguable merit given the CA's and CFI's reasoning on consistency, procedural issues, weighting of children's ages and the implied refusal to shorten a lifelong deportation order; costs awarded to respondent.
9 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCA 368
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP230/2024

Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant was unable to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success in the intended judicial review and failed to identify any legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s decision; delay was short and explanation could be accepted but prospects were determinative.
11 Feb 2026

黃對張

Citation

[2026] HKFC 20
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCJA1178/2022

Maintaining the children's existing stable arrangement in Hong Kong best serves their welfare: joint custody is appropriate; father is the more suitable person for day-to-day care and control because he is the established primary carer, provides stability for schooling and daily needs, and there is no proven risk of harm; mother is granted reasonable contact; travel to Mainland for visits is permitted given historical practice and absence of objection from father.
4 Feb 2026

ISLAM MD SHOHIDUL as guardian ad litem of ISLAM SARFARAZ ADIL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 562
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1898/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success: the Board lawfully assessed evidence and country information, found no state involvement, identified viable internal relocation and low risk from identified individuals, and there was no demonstrated error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness warranting judicial review.
16 Dec 2025

H v. W

Citation

[2025] HKFC 203
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCJA350/2021

On balance and guided by the best interests of the children, the court allowed school trips and limited holiday removals by either parent but refused to require the mother's prior approval for every holiday; instead the court imposed a structured notice, documentation and affidavit regime (with specified timeframes, travel particulars, insurance, daily photographs and accompaniment) to protect school attendance, enable verification at immigration and mitigate abduction risk, giving weight to the social investigation, the children's expressed wishes and the father's evidence of intent.
2 Dec 2025

SO TSZ MAN, A MINOR, BY HIS NEXT FRIEND AND MOTHER, NURHAYATI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5815
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2549/2024

The Director’s refusal was not Wednesbury unreasonable: the Memorandum and Decision show the Director considered the humanitarian and other material representations, reasonably concluded that exceptional grounds were not made out, and did not err in law in the treatment of Article 3 or common law arguments because the Applicant is a Hong Kong permanent resident who could remain in Hong Kong and any hardship from relocation to Indonesia would result from a voluntary choice rather than state action; accordingly both grounds of review fail and the application is dismissed.
21 Nov 2025

L W S v. T M L T

Citation

[2025] HKFC 183
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMP129/2019

The court found ABA therapy was necessary for the child but the Mother failed to prove that Autism Circle was a reasonable provider or that she had paid the sums claimed to Autism Circle; Autism Circle\u2019s receipts and Mother\u2019s deposit slips were unreliable and rejected; HK$1.1m from Father treated partly (half assessed) as provision for the child and deducted; balancing the parties\u2019 means and child\u2019s best interests the court awarded a lump sum of HK$1,842,442 and periodical payments (HK$57,500/month from 15 Aug 2024 to 14 Dec 2024; HK$69,000/month from 15 Dec 2024 until maj…