Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bias and procedural fairness

Legal area

Court

12 Jun 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCA 480
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP4/2025

The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to show the intended appeal raised a question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) Cap 484 and failed to demonstrate any prospects of success; accordingly leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused and there was no reason to depart from the practice of deciding the application on the papers.
8 Sept 2022

RE HOSSAIN MOHAMMAD SAJID

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1268
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV94/2022

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show that the intended appeal raised a question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484 and failed to demonstrate any real prospects of success; written submissions that quote general principles without identifying specific grounds are insufficient to obtain leave.
23 Mar 2022

SAAVEDRA SILVA SERGIO RICARDO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 695
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL532/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to particularise any bias or legal error, the Board's adverse credibility findings were supported by multiple material inconsistencies so the applicant failed to discharge the burden of proof for non‑refoulement protection, and the applicant voluntarily abandoned the application by electing to return to Peru.
30 Aug 2021

RE CHOWDHURY ARIF

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1250
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV462/2020

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant's complaints concerned case-specific factual matters that do not raise questions of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap.484 and, on the merits, the matters advanced lacked substance; no basis existed under the "otherwise" limb.
15 Aug 2019

RE HUSSAIN MUNAWAR

Citation

[2019] HKCA 933
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV110/2019

The notice of motion was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) HKCFAO and there was no basis to grant leave under the alternative limb; therefore leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused.
16 Apr 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 955
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1323/2018

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify exceptional circumstances to permit judicial review of the Director's decision where a statutory appeal to the Board had been pursued and determined, and because the applicant lacked a reasonable prospect of success given the Adjudicator's adverse credibility findings and the Director's proper consideration of relevant Country of Origin Information and protection issues.
22 Dec 2016

陳慶森及另一人對開心電話賓館有限公司及另一人

Citation

陳慶森及另一人對開心電話賓館有限公司及另一人
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA32/2015

The judge found no legal error in the Labour Tribunal's reasoning and that the factual findings were plainly supported by the evidence; accordingly the application for leave to appeal failed to meet the statutory/established threshold and was dismissed.
22 Dec 2016

陳富華及另十一人對開心電話賓館有限公司

Citation

陳富華及另十一人對開心電話賓館有限公司
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA33/2015

Leave to appeal was refused because the Labour Tribunal's decision was well reasoned, supported by clear and overwhelming evidence, and contained no legal error; the appellant's allegations of bias were unsubstantiated.
4 Feb 2016

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA687/2015

The magistrate had good cause to refuse to issue the five private summonses because the material before him lacked the necessary particulars and substance to establish the alleged offences and the contempt allegations could not be pursued in the Magistrates' Courts as they occurred outside the face of the court; there was no demonstrable bias and the appellant received a fair hearing, therefore the appeals were dismissed.