Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Exhaustion of remedies

Legal area

Court

11 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCA 703
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV743/2025

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to exhaust the statutory appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board under s.37ZR of the Immigration Ordinance, rendering his attempt to seek leave for judicial review an abuse of the two‑tier administrative process, and the applicant has not demonstrated any viable grounds of error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the judge's decision to strike out the application.
13 Apr 2026

RE KULDEEP SINGH

Citation

[2026] HKCA 491
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV51/2026

Appeal dismissed because the applicant sought judicial review of the Director's BOR 2 decision without exhausting available appeal remedies; the leave application was inordinate delayed without explanation and the applicant failed to provide requested materials; no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was identified such that the intended judicial review had no prospect of success.
5 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1346
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL938/2024

Leave was refused because the applicant had not appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board as mandated by s37ZR of the Immigration Ordinance, and there was no prospect of success given the Director's findings that the risk amounted to a private monetary dispute, state protection and internal relocation were available, and no cogent grounds were advanced in the leave application.
13 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 269
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1103/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant had not exhausted the available statutory remedy of appealing to the Torture Claims Appeal Board under s37ZR(a) of the Immigration Ordinance and had failed to adduce documentary evidence showing circumstances beyond his control to justify reopening the claim under s37ZG(3); in the absence of an appeal and given the delay, there was no legal or procedural basis for the present leave application.
7 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 88
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL33/2021

The application for leave was dismissed because judicial review was not available against the DOI BOR2 decision due to failure to exhaust available remedies (no petition/appeal to TCAB), and even if treated as a challenge to the TCAB decision the applicant did not demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality nor a reasonably arguable case, so leave was properly refused.
31 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6471
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1297/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to pursue the mandatory two-tier administrative remedy under section 37ZR(b) and the USM by not appealing to the Torture Claims Appeal Board, and there was no arguable legal basis to impugn the Director’s fact-based assessment that the claimed risk was low and internal relocation/state protection were available.
16 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6191
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1229/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to exhaust the statutory remedy of appealing to the Torture Claims Appeal Board under s37ZR(b) and had not undergone the second-tier Unified Screening Mechanism; there was consequently no legal or procedural basis for judicial review of the Director's decision, which had properly assessed the risk as low and identified state protection and internal relocation as available.
28 Apr 2025

PAL SUSHIL KUMAR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1672
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL585/2025

Extension of time was refused because the applicant offered no reasonable or credible explanation for the excessive 23‑month delay and the proposed substantive leave application had no realistic prospect of success; the Director's Notice disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and satisfied the Wednesbury standard, so refusal of the subsequent claim and refusal to grant time extension were lawful.
20 Dec 2024

唐启芳對死因庭 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3677
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2379/2024

Permission for judicial review was refused because the applicant invoked the wrong procedure under s20(1)(a) of the Coroners Ordinance, had not exhausted the statutory remedy, and there was no basis to exercise discretion to permit judicial review before exhaustion of remedies.
8 Apr 2022

洪育貞對醫院管理局主席范鴻齡 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1037
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1005/2021

Permission refused because applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonably arguable case: the detention and conditional release complied with the Mental Health Ordinance; the Hospital Authority Chairman was not the decision‑maker and thus not the proper respondent; the applicant had not exhausted the statutory review remedy under s59B; the challenge impermissibly attacked medical judgments without evidential support; and the application was out of time under Order 53 without satisfactory explanation.