Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bill of rights ordinance

Legal area

Court

13 Mar 2025

CHHETRI RAHUL BAHADUR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCA 210
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV426/2024

The appeal is dismissed because the Applicant failed to demonstrate any viable ground to overturn the Judge's refusal of leave; the Board's adverse credibility findings and assessment of risk fall within its fact‑finding province and no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was shown to justify judicial intervention.
29 Aug 2022

ILUMUENI NZUZI ILOUS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMNT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1294
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV179/2022

The Court of Appeal held the judge erred in refusing leave because the Board and judge unjustifiably treated the applicant, a civilian, as a 'fugitive from justice' without evidence that his contractual breach amounted to a criminal offence or lawful detention; the Board also failed properly to consider whether the officer who ordered the assault (Colonel K) acted as a state agent and failed adequately to consider COI. Those defects meant the intended judicial review on Grounds 2(b) and 2(c) was reasonably arguable and leave to apply for judicial review was granted with specific directions.
27 Oct 2021

KAMAL SHAHIDUL ISLAM v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3150
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1363/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show a significant change of circumstances under s37ZO that, together with previous material, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; the Director's factual findings were not Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally unfair; and a Restricted Proceedings Order was justified to prevent abuse of the court's process by relitigation of the same facts.
30 Jun 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1404
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL355/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because there was no reasonably arguable basis of unlawfulness, procedural unfairness or error of law in the Adjudicator's rehearing decision; the findings (including disbelief of the applicant) were open to the Adjudicator and there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
21 Feb 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 636
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL679/2018

The adjudicator and Director properly evaluated the evidence and law and correctly found the applicant failed to establish a real risk of torture, CIDTP or persecution; state protection and internal relocation were viable on the applicant's own evidence; there was no procedural unfairness or legal error and the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable, therefore the grounds were not reasonably arguable and leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
29 Jan 2010

TSUI KIN KWOK JOHNNIE v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

TSUI KIN KWOK JOHNNIE v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL50/2009

The originating summons in HCAL 143/2009 was an abuse of process because it sought to obtain public law remedies and to challenge procedural requirements by means of a private action in order to circumvent the leave and time limits applicable to judicial review; public law challenges and challenges to the legality of procedural provisions should be pursued by judicial review, therefore HCAL 143/2009 was struck out and dismissed.
19 Feb 2009

POON TING CHAU v. WONG KWOK CHI AND ANOTHER

Citation

POON TING CHAU v. WONG KWOK CHI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV65/2007

The Court dismissed the appeal because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any substantive error: Order 49B and the examination regime are constitutional and appropriately invoked; the Master acted within discretion; clerical errors in the Examination Orders were amendable under Order 20 r11 or inherent jurisdiction; lack of personal service did not render amended orders void; substituted service and ex parte amendments were properly handled, therefore the Examination Orders and Substituted Service Orders stand.
2 Nov 2007

KOON WING YEE v. THE SECURITIES & FUTURES COMMISSION

Citation

KOON WING YEE v. THE SECURITIES & FUTURES COMMISSION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL7/2007

The challenge was dismissed as premature: Article 11(2)(g) and Article 10 protections are engaged only where criminal charges or Market Misconduct Tribunal proceedings are actually brought. At the time of the notice the applicant faced neither, and binding authority (HKSAR v Lee Ming Tee) establishes the testimonial immunity in Article 11(2)(g) applies only to persons charged; therefore s183 did not presently breach the Bill of Rights and issues about the MMT's criminal character or impartiality arise only if proceedings are instituted.
11 Jun 1999

HKSAR v. CHAN CHUI MEI

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN CHUI MEI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC378/1998

The court held that the common law definition of murder, which includes intention to cause grievous bodily harm and allows secondary liability based on foresight, does not violate Articles 5 or 11 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance nor the Basic Law; accordingly the application for discharge under s.16 CPO was refused.
26 Mar 1999

WONG YEUNG NG v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

WONG YEUNG NG v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV161/1998

The Court of Appeal certified the first question as a point of great and general importance — namely whether the offence of scandalizing the court is compatible with articles protecting freedom of expression such that it requires proof of a clear, present and imminent danger to the administration of justice — and declined to certify the second question about whether the specific pursuit of the judge constituted contempt in the absence of proof of actual interference, because the Court found contempt established by real risk of undermining public confidence.