Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bill of rights (bor)

Legal area

Court

13 Nov 2024

GINNY BHUPINDER AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1046
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV288/2024

The appeal is dismissed because the applicants failed to advance any viable ground to show the judge erred in refusing leave; the Board's adverse credibility findings and risk assessment were supported by detailed reasoning and not shown to be legally flawed, and procedural non-compliance (failure to lodge skeleton argument) justified disposal on paper with no prospect of success.
30 Jul 2024

RE MUSHTAQ SHAHID

Citation

[2024] HKCA 647
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP49/2023

The renewed application to extend time was dismissed because the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success—no viable legal grounds were advanced to challenge the Board's decision, and the Board's findings and risk assessment were not shown to be legally erroneous, irrational or procedurally unfair; accordingly it was futile to extend time.
15 May 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 833
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL802/2017

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify or establish any reasonably arguable ground of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness; the Adjudicator conducted the process appropriately, his factual findings were open to him and his decision on the papers was reasonable, so there was no realistic prospect of success.
25 Feb 2019

HOSSAIN MD FARHAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2019] HKCA 184
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV496/2018

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the judge's refusal of leave or in the Board's decision, and the Court of Appeal will not overturn a refusal of leave absent such demonstrable errors; non‑compliance with the Registrar's unless order justified dealing with the appeal on paper.
23 Aug 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1892
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1093/2017

The Applicant failed to provide a satisfactory or documented explanation for a seven-week late filing; the Board's refusal of the late appeal was not Wednesbury unreasonable; the Director's findings on risk, state protection and internal relocation were rational and procedurally fair on rigorous scrutiny; the Applicant had no realistic prospect of success and leave was refused.
11 Jun 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1246
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL570/2017

Leave refused because the adjudicator conducted a careful and detailed rehearing, properly considered evidence and COI, made clear credibility findings supported by reasons, applied correct legal principles on torture/CIDTP/persecution/right to life and state protection, and the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable; therefore the applicant had no realistic prospect of success.

Hong Kong Case Law

GINNY BHUPINDER AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

RE MUSHTAQ SHAHID

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

HOSSAIN MD FARHAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

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

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