Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Country conditions

  • 20 Apr 2023

    RE ANOZIE CHIDI FRANKLINE

    Citation
    [2023] HKCA 539
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAMP160/2022

    Extension of time refused because applicant was over four months out of time without adequate explanation, raised no viable grounds of appeal (and raised new, contradictory facts), and the Board's adverse credibility and risk findings showed no legal error or procedural unfairness so the intended appeal had no real prospect of success, rendering extension futile.

    • Extension of time
    • Leave to apply for judicial review
    • Credibility findings
    • Country conditions
    • Procedural fairness
    • Non‑refoulement

  • 9 Mar 2023

    RE INDAH DWI WINARSIH

    Citation
    [2023] HKCA 294
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV541/2021

    The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) HKCFAO, her submissions were bare, vague, unparticularised and fact‑specific, raised new points not argued below, and did not identify any error in the Court's prior judgment.

    • Leave to appeal
    • Procedural fairness
    • Irrationality
    • Torture claim
    • Country conditions

  • 20 Apr 2021

    BEGUM TAHURA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2021] HKCA 343
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV6/2020

    The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the proposed grounds did not raise any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b), were irrelevant to the Judge's reasons below, and therefore the statutory requirements for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal were not met.

    • Leave to appeal
    • Non-refoulement
    • State acquiescence
    • Country conditions
    • Procedural fairness
    • Duty lawyer performance

  • 8 Mar 2021

    AMANDIP SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2021] HKCA 258
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV272/2020

    Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any legal error in the courts below or to identify any question of great general or public importance or other sufficient basis under section 22(1)(b) Cap.484; his grounds were bare assertions lacking particulars or evidence and did not justify granting leave.

    • Non-refoulement
    • Torture claim
    • Judicial review
    • Leave to appeal to court of final appeal
    • Procedural fairness
    • Country conditions

  • 22 Nov 2019

    RE MD AZIZUL ISLAM

    Citation
    [2019] HKCA 1299
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV194/2019

    The application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance as required by s22(1)(b) Cap 484, failed to demonstrate any error in the Court of Appeal's Judgment, and raised no reasonably arguable issue; subsidiary complaints not previously advanced provide no basis for leave.

    • Judicial review
    • Non‑refoulement
    • Leave to appeal to court of final appeal
    • Country conditions
    • Procedural fairness
    • Delay

  • 27 May 2019

    RE REZA SAHIN

    Citation
    [2019] HKCA 539
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV467/2018

    Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any error in the Court of Appeal's conclusion that he had not advanced effective arguments capable of reversing the judge's decision and did not raise any question of great general or public importance as required by section 22(1)(b) Cap 484.

    • Leave to appeal
    • State acquiescence/involvement
    • Fairness in tribunal proceedings
    • Country conditions
    • Judicial review leave criteria

  • 7 Jan 2019

    RE MOHAMMAD TITU

    Citation
    [2019] HKCA 7
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV355/2018

    Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s.22(1)(b); the grounds were unarguable or repetitive of earlier arguments; and the purported new evidence did not satisfy the Ladd v Marshall requirements nor could it have affected the BOR2 assessment or outcome; no basis existed under the 'otherwise' limb to grant leave.

    • Leave to appeal
    • Procedural impropriety
    • Irrationality
    • New evidence
    • Country conditions
    • Standard of fairness

  • 26 Jan 2017

    PARDEEP SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    PARDEEP SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL164/2015

    The court held the Adjudicator's findings that the assaults were minor and that it was extremely unlikely the applicant would face torture or be framed on return were adequately reasoned and not irrational; consequently the judicial review had no reasonably arguable grounds, the application for extension of time was refused and leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed.

    • Non-refoulement
    • Torture
    • State acquiescence
    • Procedural impropriety
    • Adequacy of reasons
    • Delay

  • 5 Sept 2005

    MARILYN G ARINGO AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

    Citation
    MARILYN G ARINGO AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL96/2004

    The Director's refusal was lawful and within discretion: the husband expressly indicated intentions to pursue business in Hong Kong and was not genuinely dependent; the Director reasonably doubted the sponsor's financial capacity following departmental investigations; the Director was not obliged to conduct the extensive independent inquiries the applicants sought; and the wife's constitutional protections could not be used to extend rights to the husband given s.11 of the Bill of Rights. The judicial review is dismissed.

    • Dependency visa
    • Dependency policy
    • Wednesbury unreasonableness
    • Discretionary refusal
    • Financial sponsorship
    • Bill of rights limitation (s.11)

  • 15 Dec 1997

    TRAN THANG LAM and OTHERS v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

    Citation
    TRAN THANG LAM and OTHERS v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL80/1997

    The application for production of screening and other documents was refused because there was no external material suggesting Mr Choy's summaries were materially inaccurate, the other categories of documents sought were irrelevant to the substantive issues, and allowing production on the Applicants' grounds would risk an impermissible fishing expedition; production could be ordered later if material suggesting inaccuracies emerged.

    • Production of documents
    • Judicial review procedure
    • Refoulement
    • Resettlement
    • Screening interviews
    • Country conditions