Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Humanitarian considerations

Legal area

Court

4 Mar 2026

香港特別行政區訴詹培忠

Citation

[2026] HKCA 489
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC19/2025

Bail pending appeal was granted because the court could not conclude at the bail stage that the amended grounds were not reasonably arguable, there had been a substantive change in circumstances since the first refusal, and the combination of the time factor (possible completion of the sentence before appeal hearing) and humanitarian considerations (age and health) made continued detention unfair; the court will determine bail conditions after hearing submissions.
6 Feb 2026

KULDIP SINGH v. HONG KONG SAR GOVERNMENT AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 768
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL268/2026

The applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law grounds with a realistic prospect of success; the Deportation Order was lawfully made under section 20(1)(a) of the Immigration Ordinance; prior non-refoulement claims had been dismissed and could not be re-litigated; humanitarian arguments do not establish irrationality; the application was therefore an abuse of process and leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
15 Aug 2025

WASEEM GHOUSIA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3524
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1348/2025

The Director's decisions to refuse and to maintain refusal of an extension of stay were within lawful discretion; there was no legal duty to grant stay on humanitarian grounds, the weight of the factors was for the Director, and the material did not establish irrationality or illegality that would justify judicial intervention; therefore the application for leave to apply for judicial review is not reasonably arguable and is dismissed.
23 Dec 2024

HKSAR v. KWAN HAU CHI, VANESSA

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1194
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC244/2021

The applicant failed to demonstrate highly exceptional circumstances to justify lifting the travel restriction imposed as a condition of bail pending appeal; public policy interests in ensuring attendance and protecting the administration of justice outweigh the applicant's humanitarian and property-related reasons, particularly given available alternatives to manage the London property and the real possibility the applicant may not return due to health.
26 Apr 2022

KANG DAVINDER KAUR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1186
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1401/2018

The Director did not fetter his discretion and had properly invited and considered supporting material; the applicant failed to present the relevant cultural and personal evidence to the Director, the Director had no duty to investigate matters not raised, and the decision was not irrational or procedurally unfair; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review is not arguable and is dismissed.
8 Apr 2022

林柳對人事登記審裁處 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1036
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL461/2021

Permission to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant advanced only humanitarian/personal mitigation without alleging illegality, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury-level unreasonableness; the Tribunal lawfully applied s2(4)(b) of the Immigration Ordinance and precedent to find the 8-day imprisonment interrupted continuity of ordinary residence, and there was no basis for judicial intervention.
15 Oct 2021

SIHMIATI ARIS SETYOWATI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3001
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL953/2021

Because the applicant was not covered by any prevailing immigration policy and the Director reasonably concluded there were no strong extenuating circumstances warranting exceptional consideration, the refusal to extend her stay was not Wednesbury-unreasonable and leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed.
4 Jun 2021

GURMER KAUR v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1531
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL315/2021

None of the three proposed grounds for judicial review were reasonably arguable; the Director was not legally obliged to give weight to humanitarian considerations, there were no sufficient extenuating grounds to disturb the Director's discretion regarding risk of honour killing, and the departure deadline and treatment of reconsideration/leave were not unlawful or procedurally unfair.
7 Jul 2017

RE CHOWDHURY MD IMTIAZ AHMED

Citation

RE CHOWDHURY MD IMTIAZ AHMED
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV2/2017

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant did not raise any question of great, general or public importance required by s22(1)(b) CFAO, the humanitarian grounds were factual matters without an arguable point of law or public importance, and there was no basis under the residual 'or otherwise' limb to grant leave.
31 Mar 2017

RE CHOWDHURY MD IMTIAZ AHMED

Citation

RE CHOWDHURY MD IMTIAZ AHMED
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV2/2017

Leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused because the application was brought with undue delay without good explanation and, on the merits, the Director lawfully applied the Dependant Visa Policy including the No Record Requirement and properly exercised discretion in considering humanitarian factors; Li J's refusal of leave is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed.