Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Form 86 requirements

Legal area

Court

18 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2504
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2432/2024

The applicant's grounds were vague and lacking particulars, he failed to show any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's detailed credibility and risk findings, and therefore his challenge was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success; leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed.
30 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2227
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1686/2023

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law ground, failed to make the required full and frank disclosure in Form 86, and did not demonstrate any legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's fact-based decision that would give realistic prospects of success.
14 Apr 2026

CHU CHAU KA YEE v. HKU ENGINEERING UNDERGRADUATE OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2053
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL674/2026

Because the applicant failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements of Order 53 rule 3(2) by not using Form 86 to state relief and grounds and by not providing a supporting affidavit, and because no reasonably arguable public law grounds were identified, there was no basis to grant leave and the application must be dismissed.
13 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1388
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1957/2023

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify reasonably arguable public law grounds in Form 86 and did not show any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board's adverse credibility and factual findings that there was no risk and that protection/internal relocation were available are factual determinations not subject to interference absent public law error, and therefore the proposed challenge had no realistic prospect of success.
12 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1171
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL645/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed because the applicant failed to identify arguable grounds or make full disclosure and the TCAB decision, on review, disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality after enhanced scrutiny.
6 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1072
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL888/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify arguable grounds in Form 86, withdrew the allegation of lack of legal representation, failed to establish the interpreter allegation on the record, and could not show any public law error, illegality or irrationality in the Board's factual findings on credibility and internal relocation; consequently the intended challenge was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.
2 Mar 2026

蕭志明對法律援助署署長

Citation

[2026] HKCA 305
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV485/2024

The mandatory requirement in Order 53 r3(2)(a) that Form 86 state the relief sought and the grounds was not met; the court may refuse leave where the form is effectively blank and the relief cannot be ascertained from supporting affidavits. The fresh evidence application failed because most documents existed prior to the leave application and did not satisfy the first and second Ladd v Marshall conditions. Challenges to the Deputy Registrar's directions on bundle preparation and procedure were unfounded. Therefore leave was properly refused and the appeal is dismissed.
3 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 446
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL587/2021

Refusal of leave and of extension of time was justified because the application was grossly out of time (approximately 2 years 9 months), no acceptable explanation for the delay was provided, the Form 86 failed to identify any arguable grounds of error of law or procedural unfairness, and the TCAB decision showed no legal error, unfairness or irrationality; therefore there was no good reason to extend time and leave was dismissed.
2 Feb 2026

BEPARY MOHAMMAD JASIM v. NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 450
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL500/2021

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify arguable grounds and the Board's Decision contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the Board's findings on risk, state protection and internal relocation were supported by evidence and satisfy the Wednesbury standard.
30 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 501
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL781/2023

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law errors in the Board's decision, the Board applied the law correctly and reached fact findings open to it, the Form 86 lacked pleaded grounds and particulars, and the challenge was not reasonably arguable; the applicant also sought to withdraw the application.