Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Iccpr

Legal area

Court

11 May 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1245
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL188/2020

Because voluntariness and informed acceptance of withdrawal were not established and the applicant had not advanced grounds for leave, and after anxious scrutiny the Board's decision was found regular with no error of law or procedural unfairness, the court refused the withdrawal and dismissed the leave application for want of prosecution.
21 Feb 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 636
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL679/2018

The adjudicator and Director properly evaluated the evidence and law and correctly found the applicant failed to establish a real risk of torture, CIDTP or persecution; state protection and internal relocation were viable on the applicant's own evidence; there was no procedural unfairness or legal error and the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable, therefore the grounds were not reasonably arguable and leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
26 Oct 2018

B K LIL BAHADUR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1923
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL146/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable legal or procedural error by the Director or the Adjudicator; both decision‑makers applied the correct legal tests, considered credible and relevant evidence, afforded procedural fairness, and reached decisions that were open and eminently reasonable on the facts, such that there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
11 May 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 919
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL538/2017

The TCAB's decision was a lawful, careful de novo assessment of evidence and credibility; no error of law or procedural unfairness was shown and the applicant's grounds were not reasonably arguable, so leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
13 Apr 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 654
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL624/2017

The Director and the Adjudicator correctly applied the relevant law and legal standards, gave the Applicant reasonable opportunities to present and supplement evidence, and their adverse credibility findings and factual determinations were open to them on the evidence; there was no arguable unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness and therefore no realistic prospect of success on judicial review, so leave is refused.
2 Feb 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 169
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL375/2017

The leave application was refused because the adjudicator correctly applied the law and evaluated the evidence; the applicant failed to demonstrate a real risk of torture, CIDTP, persecution for a Convention reason or violation of the right to life, there was no error of law or procedural unfairness, and the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable, so there was no realistic prospect of success.
31 Aug 2012

KONG YUNMING v. THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE

Citation

KONG YUNMING v. THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV185/2009

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the applicant's constitutional challenge to the seven-year residence requirement carried no reasonable prospect of success and relevant considerations had already been addressed by the Court of Final Appeal in Fok Chun Wa, so the statutory test for leave was not met.
21 Aug 2008

RIGHT TO INHERENT DIGNITY MOVEMENT ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. HKSAR GOVERNMENT AND ANOTHER

Citation

RIGHT TO INHERENT DIGNITY MOVEMENT ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. HKSAR GOVERNMENT AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL74/2008

The leave requirement (as reflected in Order 53 Rule 3 and Section 27K(3) HCO) is a necessary and proportionate measure that does not infringe the constitutional right of access to courts or fair hearing rights; the applicant failed to show a reasonably arguable case, did not comply with procedural requirements and thus leave is refused and costs are awarded.
14 May 2008

TONG YU LAM v. THE LONG-TERM PRISON SENTENCES REVIEW BOARD AND ANOTHER

Citation

TONG YU LAM v. THE LONG-TERM PRISON SENTENCES REVIEW BOARD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV203/2006

The Court dismissed the application for leave because the legal questions relied upon were effectively determined by the Court of Final Appeal in Lau Cheong (as explained in paras 12–14), therefore no arguable question of sufficient general or public importance justified leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.