Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Credibility and corroboration

Legal area

Court

18 Sept 2025

SUNIL KUMAR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4071
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1593/2025

Leave refused because the Director correctly found the applicant failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances or provide sufficient corroborating evidence, the account was not credible and was delayed, and even on the applicant’s own account any risk was localized and negated by state protection and reasonable internal relocation; therefore there was no realistic prospect of success. A RPO was justified because the applicant persistently sought to re‑litigate finally determined claims constituting an abuse of process.
15 Jul 2024

OFOR IKECHUKWU MICHAEL alias RABE LAWAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2024] HKCA 659
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV371/2023

The judge correctly refused leave because the applicant failed to identify any error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision, the Board's adverse credibility and corroboration findings were tenable, and there was no realistic prospect of success; the Court of Appeal therefore dismissed the appeal for lack of merits.
14 Dec 2023

HKSAR v. HUI KA LOK, SAM

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1358
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC269/2021

Leave to appeal against conviction refused for Grounds 1–6 because the trial directions were adequate and the complained matters were not reasonably arguable; leave granted for Ground 7 because omission to direct on the co-conspirator rule in relation to certain texts and statements was reasonably arguable. Leave to appeal against sentence granted on all grounds because issues about the appropriate starting point for very large quantities and the quantum and aggregation of enhancements (role and international element) raised arguable questions including application of the totality principle.
30 Sept 2021

TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2926
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1039/2021

Extension of time was refused because the applicant's 6‑week delay was substantial and not adequately explained; the intended judicial review had no real prospect of success because the Board's adverse credibility findings and lack of corroboration were supported by the record and no legal error or procedural unfairness was demonstrated; accordingly leave was dismissed.
1 Sept 2021

DIALLO THIERNO AMADOU v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2547
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1027/2021

The Director's decision to refuse permission to make a subsequent claim was lawful because the Applicant failed to provide sufficient corroborating evidence of a significant change of circumstances or demonstrate that the asserted changes, combined with prior material, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; credibility findings and prior final determinations were properly taken into account. Given the Applicant's persistent attempts to relitigate finally determined claims without viable grounds, a Restricted Proceedings Order under section 27 and the court's inherent…
15 Mar 2021

SITI MAESAROH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCA 307
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV420/2020

Refusal to extend time and refusal of leave to appeal was justified because the applicant did not offer any adequate explanation for the delay, failed to particularise grounds for judicial review, and the Judge correctly concluded the intended judicial review had no prospect of success given the Board's open findings on credibility, lack of corroboration and availability of state protection/internal relocation; accordingly extension would be futile and leave to appeal is refused.
1 Mar 2021

OLLANGO JOYCE ANNE ACHIENG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 324
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1914/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was granted because the applicant met the arguability test: there were reasonably arguable grounds that the Board's Decision contained legal errors, irrational findings and/or procedural irregularities (including inadequate reasons and flawed credibility assessment) warranting full judicial review.
13 Nov 2020

香港特別行政區訴鄭棨語

Citation

[2020] HKCA 943
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC8/2020

The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge's factual findings — that the complainant became incapacitated by drugs and that the appellant took advantage of her incapacitated state with intent to obtain illegal sexual contact — were open on the totality of the evidence (complainant's account, CCTV, medical toxicology and the appellant's conduct); the alleged inconsistencies were peripheral and did not undermine credibility sufficiently to overturn the verdict; and the 30‑month concurrent sentences were not excessive given the planned nature and health risk of drugging to facilitate sexual…
26 Mar 2019

HALIM ABDUL v. KAY RANSOME, ESQ., TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2019] HKCA 354
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV481/2018

The Court refused to admit the fresh documents because the Ladd v Marshall criteria were not satisfied (documents lacked demonstrable provenance, were not shown to be unobtainable with reasonable diligence and would not probably affect the outcome); the Judge properly applied rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny and the Board's assessment of credibility, risk and viability of internal relocation was not infected by error of law or procedural unfairness; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was correctly refused and the appeal dismissed.
20 Apr 2018

SHAH SYED SAGHIR HUSSAIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 794
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL819/2017

Leave refused because the applicant had had adequate opportunity and representation at the Director stage, declined to give oral evidence before the Board, provided no evidence he requested language assistance, and the Board and Director applied lawful principles in rejecting his claims; there is no realistic prospect of success for judicial review.