Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Duty of joint endeavour

Legal area

Court

23 Feb 2026

OMAR OUBELLA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCA 184
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP132/2025

The Court refused the application for extension of time because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error in the judge's decision or any viable ground of appeal; many grounds repeated matters rejected below or were new and inadmissible, and there was no realistic prospect of success, so extension of time would be futile.
20 Sept 2022

AZUBUINE SOLOMON KINGSLEY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1364
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV231/2021

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the Judge's refusal of leave: the Board's adverse credibility and material findings were reasonable and not vitiated by legal error or procedural unfairness; the Applicant failed to produce medical or other evidence before the Board and failed to satisfy Ladd v Marshall for new evidence; the duty of joint endeavour was not breached in the circumstances and no basis existed to overturn the Board's fact findings under supervisory review.
7 Jan 2022

KULWINDER KAUR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCA 48
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV486/2018

The appeal was allowed in part: it is reasonably arguable that the Adjudicator failed to observe the high standards of fairness required of the joint‑endeavour process by not clearly informing the applicant that her election not to give evidence could lead to adverse credibility findings and by not alerting her to issues (including possible mental health/memory concerns) that might require investigation; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review is granted limited to that refined Ground 1 and the judge's refusal of leave is set aside.
21 Dec 2021

AZUBUINE SOLOMON KINGSLEY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1940
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV231/2021

The Court refused admission of the proposed medical reports and COI because the Ladd v Marshall conditions were not satisfied: the medical evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use below and did not show impairment at the time of the Board hearing sufficient to undermine credibility findings; the COI was publicly available and would not probably have an important influence on the result or address the core findings about pre-2016 IPOB membership and engineered sur place activity; no exceptional circumstances justified admission. The summons to adduce new evidence was…

Hong Kong Case Law

OMAR OUBELLA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

AZUBUINE SOLOMON KINGSLEY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

KULWINDER KAUR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

AZUBUINE SOLOMON KINGSLEY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE