Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

Legal area

Court

30 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2292
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1476/2025

The application for extension of time was refused and the leave application dismissed because the applicant filed out of time and failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success or any valid legal ground to impugn the Board's findings; the Board's credibility and country findings stood and no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was shown.
30 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2291
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1475/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success or any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's fact-finding; the Board's adverse credibility findings, minimal weight given to hearsay, and conclusions that state protection and internal relocation were available were within its province and not susceptible to supervisory interference.
30 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2213
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1477/2025

The application was more than five months late and, having considered the merits, the court concluded the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success; therefore there was no good reason to extend time and the application for leave was dismissed.
14 Apr 2026

RUBEL ATIQUL ISLAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2018
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1393/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal ground and could not show a realistic prospect of success; the Board's factual findings on credibility, state protection and internal relocation were not shown to be legally flawed or procedurally unfair.
17 Mar 2026

PHAM VAN LONG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1359
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1502/2021

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable ground of judicial review; the Board's factual findings (no evidence of the loan, no persuasive risk, availability of state protection and internal relocation) were within the Board's province and not legally flawed, thus the applicant had no realistic prospect of success.
17 Mar 2026

TRAN THI BICH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1361
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1563/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable public law ground or procedural unfairness, the Board made adverse credibility findings upheld on review, and the applicant failed to show lack of state protection or impossibility of internal relocation so there was no realistic prospect of success.
11 Mar 2026

LE TIEN THANH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1371
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1369/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success or any valid legal ground; the Board's decision that the claim was unsubstantiated and that state protection and internal relocation were available was not vitiated by error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
5 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1088
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1331/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success; the Board's findings that the claim was unsubstantiated, that there was no state connection to the creditor, and that internal relocation and state protection were viable were within the Board's fact-finding province and not shown to involve legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the court has no jurisdiction to order the adjudicator to speak to the applicant again.
7 Jan 2026

TRAN QUANG HANH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 78
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1229/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's grounds were bare assertions lacking supporting evidence and he failed to show any realistic prospect of success; the Board had made factual findings (no intent to kill by creditor, no police report, availability of state protection, internal relocation viable) and there was no demonstrated error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial intervention.
19 Dec 2025

HARIANTO NUNUNG NURLAILA BT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6204
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1216/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal ground; she did not demonstrate a realistic prospect of success or any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's adverse credibility findings and risk assessment, including the Board's conclusion that internal relocation was viable.