Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Duty lawyer representation

Legal area

Court

12 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6152
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL896/2021

Leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to pursue the statutory appeal remedy to the Torture Claims Appeal Board as expressly advised and provided no grounds or explanation in the leave application to show an arguable case or circumstances justifying bypassing the statutory appeal, leaving no legal basis for judicial review.
14 Jan 2022

GURSEWAK SINGH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2022] HKCA 16
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP265/2021

Extension of time was refused because the applicant had an unexplained and substantial delay of over two years and failed to show any real prospect of success in the intended appeal; his complaints were previously raised and rejected by the judge and no identifiable legal error or relevant omission was shown, and he had prior duty lawyer representation so there was no viable ground to extend time.
9 May 2019

TOURAY OUSAINOU v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCA 512
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV474/2018

The Judge correctly found, on rigorous examination, that the Adjudicator and Board provided the applicant with sufficient opportunity and representation, asked appropriate questions, and reached findings based on evidence without error of law or Wednesbury unreasonableness; therefore the applicant lacked reasonable prospects of success and leave to judicially review was properly refused, and the appeal against that refusal was dismissed.
14 Mar 2019

RANDEEP SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2019] HKCA 300
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV209/2018

The Court refused leave because the applicant's grounds merely repeated points already considered and did not raise any arguable point or question of great general or public importance as required by s.22(1)(b) Cap.484; therefore leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was not justified.
7 Mar 2018

SABUZ MOLLAH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 401
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL312/2017

No reasonably arguable error of law or procedural unfairness was demonstrated against the TCAB/adjudicator; the adjudicator applied correct legal tests, considered COI, state protection and internal relocation, and the decision met the enhanced Wednesbury standard; consequently there is no realistic prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
18 Dec 2017

MANNAN ABDUL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER

Citation

MANNAN ABDUL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL472/2017

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable ground: key substantive claims lacked merit on their face, the applicant admitted facts that undermined asserted procedural unfairness, the TCAB decision was not shown to involve legal error or Wednesbury-unreasonableness, and the application was an abuse of process used to delay removal.
12 Aug 2011

HKSAR v. HACHI CHAN, VIVIAN

Citation

HKSAR v. HACHI CHAN, VIVIAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA692/2010

The conviction was upheld because the trial magistrate's direct assessment of witness credibility and factual findings were entitled to deference; however the sentence was reduced from HK$3,000 to HK$1,000 because the original fine was manifestly excessive given the appellant's first conviction, health issues and the low value of the items.
23 Nov 1999

HKSAR v. CHAN YIU MING

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN YIU MING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA603/1999

The appeal was dismissed because the court found no error in the Magistrate's factual credibility assessments or sentencing exercise; the appellant's factual and procedural complaints did not demonstrate a miscarriage of justice or justify reduction or suspension of the sentences.