Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Enhanced wednesbury review

Legal area

Court

30 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4163
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1399/2020

The applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds of judicial review or disclose material facts; the TCAB/NRCPO's adverse credibility findings and risk assessments were within its primary fact-finding province and were not shown to involve procedural unfairness, error of law, or irrationality under the enhanced Wednesbury standard; consequently there is no realistic prospect of success and leave is refused.
5 Sept 2025

ZANGO MICHEL MENESES AFONSO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3852
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL554/2020

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide any credible reason to extend time for a five-day delay and did not identify any reasonably arguable grounds of judicial review; the TCAB/NRCPO made lawful credibility and risk assessments within its primary province and no procedural unfairness, error of law or irrationality sufficient to vitiate the decision was shown, so leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
31 Jul 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3063
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL573/2020

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable ground with a realistic prospect of success; the TCAB/NRCPO's adverse findings on credibility, assessment of COI, and conclusions that state protection and internal relocation negated Persecution, BOR2/3 and Torture risks were within its evaluative province and survived enhanced Wednesbury scrutiny.
31 Jul 2025

LE, THI DUNG v. NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3064
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL600/2020

Application dismissed because it was filed 25 months late with no explanation or good reason to extend time, the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review of the TCAB Decision, and the TCAB's findings on credibility, risk and state protection were adequately reasoned and within its evaluative province under the enhanced Wednesbury standard.
17 Jul 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3026
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL603/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds with a realistic prospect of success and the TCAB/NRCPO decision contained adequate reasons and did not disclose error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality on assessment of risk, state protection and internal relocation.
17 Jul 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3030
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL637/2020

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds of review; the court's anxious scrutiny of the TCAB/NRCPO decision revealed adequate reasons for its adverse credibility and risk findings and no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality that would justify judicial intervention under the enhanced Wednesbury standard.
16 Jul 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3000
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL606/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds with a realistic prospect of success; a rigorous anxious scrutiny of the TCAB/NRCPO decision disclosed no procedural unfairness, error of law or irrationality and the TCAB/NRCPO had adequately reasoned findings on risk and internal relocation which are matters within the decision-maker's province.
11 Jul 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2795
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL543/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground with a realistic prospect of success; the NRCPO decision withstands anxious scrutiny as it gave adequate reasons for rejecting the applicant's evidence and lawfully concluded there was no BOR2/BOR3 or persecution risk and that state protection and internal relocation were available.
27 May 2022

ZAFAR IQBAL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2022] HKCA 724
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV327/2021

The judge correctly applied the governing authorities, found no prejudice from lack of legal or language assistance, accepted the COI as credible, and concluded the Board’s decision was not irrational or Wednesbury-unreasonable; therefore there was no realistic prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused.
29 Nov 2018

RE HIKMAT TULACHAN

Citation

[2018] HKCA 848
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV334/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review refused and appeal dismissed because the applicant failed to show any reasonably arguable legal error; the Board's adverse credibility finding had a rational basis, no procedural unfairness or error of law was demonstrated, and the judge correctly applied the enhanced Wednesbury standard rather than re-evaluating merits.