Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Change of circumstances

Legal area

Court

18 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1240
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL723/2021

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify substantive grounds or disclose material facts in the Form 86; the TCAB applied correct legal principles and made credibility findings supported by the record; there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the applicant's new oral assertions were inconsistent and irrelevant to the leave application and could not justify admitting further evidence at this stage.
9 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 762
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL820/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed because the Applicant failed to identify substantive grounds of review and the TCAB Decision displayed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the Applicant’s case was not reasonably arguable with a realistic prospect of success.
9 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 763
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL893/2021

Leave refused because the applicant failed to articulate substantive grounds, provided no credible or new evidence, and the TCAB had applied correct legal principles and made fact findings (lack of credibility and insufficiency of allegations) that were not legally vulnerable or irrational, so there was no reasonably arguable case with a realistic prospect of success.
11 Nov 2025

YOUSUF ALI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5454
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL801/2020

Because the applicant was granted stay in Hong Kong as a Hong Kong resident, he no longer required non-refoulement protection and the Leave Application was otiose; the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the Leave Application without determining the merits.
17 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4885
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2224/2020

The leave application was dismissed because the Board's decision to allow withdrawal of the appeal was lawfully made and final, the applicant did not assert error in that decision but sought to re-open his case on changed circumstances, the intended challenge was plainly not arguable with no realistic prospects of success, and the application was substantially out of time with no explanation or application for extension.
20 May 2025

SARBJEET SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1983
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL392/2023

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness: his grounds were bare and lacking particulars, he did not meet s37ZE requirements to re-open a withdrawn claim, failed to provide requested evidence, the Board conducted a full hearing and made reasoned credibility findings, and the claimed risk was localized with relocation available, so there was no prospect of success.
1 Apr 2025

ALLAM KHURPHID v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 890
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL761/2024

Leave to apply for judicial review was granted because the immigration officer accepted a significant change of circumstances and the subsequent claim raised materially different facts that had not been tested by the Torture Claims Appeal Board, creating a realistic prospect of success and procedural unfairness if leave were refused.
27 Dec 2024

CHAU YUET CHING BRENDA v. CHAN BO MAN WILLIAM AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3694
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA652/2017

Applicants failed to demonstrate significant change in circumstances or realistic doubts about the plaintiff’s ability to honour the cross-undertaking; age and market fluctuations without evidence of incapacity or sharp decline since 2017 are insufficient; plaintiff’s unencumbered Park Haven property provides adequate cover, therefore no further fortification is required.
5 Nov 2024

VU DINH PHUONG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1014
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP280/2023

Extension of time was refused because the applicant did not provide a justifiable explanation for the delay (failed to maintain an effective address), and, given the inexcusable delay, he failed to demonstrate a real prospect of success on the merits as the intended subsequent non‑refoulement claim was of the same private nature as the prior rejected claim and lacked supporting evidence; the judge was also entitled to determine the matter on paper.
7 Aug 2024

KCMA v. ABC AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2374
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMC1/2019

The court found a material change of circumstances in respect of two children (R and S) who are now or soon will be independent students in the US with bank accounts, thereby justifying revisiting the mode of payment under s.11(7). The variation was granted in part: periodical payments remain HKD20,000 per child per month but are to be paid directly to each child when they turn 18, study at university and have a bank account, subject to a HKD3,333 monthly deduction payable to the mother as each child’s share of rental; the variation takes effect 1 September 2024; costs awarded to father on 80…