Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Court procedure

Legal area

Court

15 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2049
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL95/2023

The court dismissed the application because the applicant validly withdrew the application for leave, there was no evidence the withdrawal was not voluntary, and there were no outstanding matters; dismissal was appropriate rather than leaving the action at large, consistent with authority in Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi.
14 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2089
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1473/2022

Because the applicant voluntarily withdrew the leave application and there was nothing outstanding in the proceedings, the court granted leave to withdraw and dismissed the application, applying Re Manik MD Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471.
3 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1049
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL3/2022

The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant voluntarily withdrew the application at the hearing and there were no outstanding issues requiring continuation of the proceedings.
4 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 424
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1241/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was granted because the Board's 19 July 2019 decision failed to consider the merits of the applicant's case as required by appellate authority at the time of the decision, and the subsequent amendment to s.37TZ (effective 1 August 2021) does not operate retrospectively to validate that omission.
6 Aug 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3006
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1499/2023

The application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant voluntarily withdrew the application and there were no outstanding matters, so the court acceded to the withdrawal and ordered dismissal.
4 Oct 2024

CABANBAN ANNA LIZA AGTARAP v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2585
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL528/2021

The judge dismissed the leave application because the applicant validly applied to withdraw the application, there was no evidence the withdrawal was not voluntary, and there was no outstanding matter in the action, making dismissal the correct disposition rather than leaving the action at large.
23 Jun 2020

RE MOHAMMED RONI KHAN

Citation

[2020] HKCA 499
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP187/2019

Time to file was extended because of COVID-19 registry closures and the applicant's litigant-in-person status, but leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap.484 and provided no particulars of errors; statutory requirements for granting leave were therefore not met.
7 Nov 2019

RE HOSSAIN MD SAZZAD

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1232
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV100/2019

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484, failed to give grounds in his Notice of Motion, sought to raise new points not previously argued, and relied on bare assertions of risk which are insufficient to justify leave.
31 Jan 2019

RE SUMIATUN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCA 93
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV226/2018

Dismissal of the application for leave was appropriate because the applicants failed to identify any question of great general or public importance as required by s22(1)(b) Cap 484, their additional allegations merely repeated earlier submissions and did not demonstrate an arguable error, and there was no basis under the 'otherwise' limb to grant leave.
29 Nov 2018

LACHY v. YC

Citation

[2018] HKFC 215
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCJA2057/2016

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success; the judge concluded the mother's litigation conduct (malicious undercurrent, publication of the father's undertaking, failure to retract when warned) justified departing from the general no-costs rule and ordering party and party costs to the 1st Applicant to be taxed if not agreed.