Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Definition of torture

Legal area

Court

18 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2804
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL746/2021

The leave application was refused because the Board correctly applied the law, fairly assessed and weighed the evidence, made fact findings open on the evidence (including that injuries were not of sufficient severity, the matter was a family dispute, state protection was available and internal relocation feasible), and the Decision contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and thus the proposed challenge had no realistic prospect of success.
30 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1819
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL612/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the Board correctly applied the law, fairly assessed and analysed the evidence, made permissible findings of fact including availability of state protection and internal relocation, and its Decision was not legally irrational or Wednesbury unreasonable; the Applicant failed to show any error of law or procedural unfairness and has no realistic prospect of success.
13 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1439
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL514/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review and extension of time were refused because the application was filed out of time without adequate explanation and the intended substantive challenge lacked merit given the Board's adverse credibility findings, the private nature of the dispute, availability of state protection and failure to satisfy the statutory/USM thresholds for protection.
7 Jan 2026

KHAWAJA WALEED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 160
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1582/2025

The application for extension of time was refused because the delay (over ten months, effectively thirteen months between decision and filing) was substantial with unsatisfactory explanation and the intended judicial review had no realistic prospect of success; the Board's Decision disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and thus leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed.
11 Nov 2025

MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5432
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2116/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to establish a reasonably arguable claim with realistic prospects: the grounds were general, lacked requisite particulars, the Board's decision showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, the applicant was not shown to be personally at risk, and new evidence not placed before the Board could not be relied on at the leave stage.
11 Nov 2025

DINH THI TIEP v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5391
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2149/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the application was made out of time without explanation and, on merits, the Board's Decision disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and therefore no reasonably arguable claim with realistic prospects of success.
23 Oct 2025

SITI-MASSUDAH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4985
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL207/2023

The court refused the applicant's unilateral withdrawal and proceeded to consider the merits; having applied the limited scope of judicial review and the enhanced Wednesbury test it found no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision, the applicant's grounds challenged factual findings without demonstrating irrationality, the claim had no realistic prospects of success, and therefore leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed.
29 Aug 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3909
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1710/2023

The court refused the withdrawal and refused leave because the applicant failed to comply with court directions and, on anxious scrutiny, the Board's decision was lawful and rational: the Board correctly applied the law, its findings that the case involved domestic violence not amounting to torture and that internal relocation was possible were supported by evidence, there was no error of law or procedural unfairness and the applicant did not discharge the burden of proof, so the leave application had no realistic prospect of success.
23 Mar 2023

RE CHAUHAN MANISH

Citation

[2023] HKCA 431
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP343/2022

Extension of time refused because the applicant had an inordinate unexplained delay of about ten months, failed to identify any error of law or procedural unfairness in the Judge's refusal of leave, and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success making an extension futile.
17 Sept 2021

RE JIM BAHADAUR GARBUJA AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1347
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV624/2020

The Court concluded the judge did not err in refusing leave: applicants failed to identify any legal error or procedural unfairness or show specific prejudice from lack of legal representation or translation; their complaints were speculative or fact-sensitive matters for the Director/Board and judicial review is not a rehearing of those factual assessments, therefore there was no prospect of success and leave was properly refused.