Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bill of rights issues

Legal area

Court

22 Aug 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3622
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL571/2020

The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law grounds; rigorous examination showed no procedural unfairness, error of law or irrationality in the TCAB/NRCPO decision and internal relocation and risk findings stood, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
27 Jan 2023

MUNATSI KINGSLEY v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 224
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1232/2022

The application for extension of time and leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the 1-day delay did not outweigh the absence of a realistic prospect of success: the subsequent claim relied on previously rejected facts, failed s.37ZO's significant-change test, credibility remained undermined and there was no procedural unfairness or legal error; the applicant's pattern of re-litigating the same facts justified an RPO to prevent abuse of process.
2 Aug 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1904
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL940/2018

The Adjudicator's findings on credibility, lack of sufficient evidence of ongoing risk, and availability of state protection and internal relocation were lawful and not Wednesbury unreasonable; there was no procedural unfairness or error of law and the applicant's complaints were not reasonably arguable, therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
29 Nov 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2149
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL925/2017

The application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused as out of time and no extension of time was granted because the applicant was 45 days late, provided no explanation or application for extension, and the intended claim was not reasonably arguable nor did it have a realistic prospect of success.
25 Apr 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 886
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL648/2017

The application for leave was refused because the Director and the Board provided adequate reasons, their credibility and internal relocation findings were not Wednesbury unreasonable, there was no procedural unfairness or legal error, and the challenge to the Director was time-barred under the three-month rule.
22 Jul 2009

HUI KEE CHUN v. THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONER FOR PERSONAL DATA

Citation

HUI KEE CHUN v. THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONER FOR PERSONAL DATA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV401/2007

The application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is dismissed because the majority of the questions relied upon were not part of the appeal or were not pleaded in the Statement of Claim, the Basic Law and Bill of Rights points were raised for the first time and are inappropriate for leave, and the remaining central issue (whether the Privacy Commissioner can be sued for negligence and breach of statutory duty for the claimed psychiatric harms) is not of sufficient general or public importance to warrant leave.
25 Nov 1997

THE ASSOCIATION OF EXPATRIATE CIVIL SERVANTS OF HONG KONG v. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE and Another

Citation

THE ASSOCIATION OF EXPATRIATE CIVIL SERVANTS OF HONG KONG v. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE and Another
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL90/1997

Leave to apply for judicial review was granted in part: A.E.C.S. has an arguable case challenging the promulgation of the Executive Order and Regulation and their retrospectivity and has standing potentially; leave was granted to challenge section 17 (restriction on leaving HKSAR) and the provisions barring legal representation in disciplinary hearings (reg.8(3)(a) and schedule paras) but only on the ground they are incompatible with Bill of Rights Art.21(c); leave was refused for challenges to ss.11,15,16 and reg.14 (double jeopardy/deterrent salary withdrawal), for s.20 (delegation/limiting…
6 Dec 1991

THE QUEEN v. MAN KIT MAN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. MAN KIT MAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA991/1991

The appeal is allowed because the evidence — the appellant acting as banker for three rounds and having about $5,000 on his person with only $220 on the table — was insufficient to establish he was operating a gambling establishment under s.5(a) of the Gambling Ordinance; the magistrate misapplied the cited precedent regarding a banker's bias.