Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interpretation services

Legal area

Court

30 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1726
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL614/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board's decision contained adequate reasons, the applicant suffered no procedural unfairness or prejudice from lack of representation or interpretation at every stage, the Board lawfully determined the appeal without a hearing, and the proposed challenge was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.
19 Mar 2026

PASCUA JANICE ALCARAZ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCA 478
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP106/2024

The Notice of Motion is dismissed because the application was filed out of time without explanation and no good grounds for extension were shown under the CFA Ordinance; the intended grounds lack merit (interpreter services had been provided and there is no absolute right to continuous interpretation or to free legal representation at all stages); and no question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) has been identified.
13 Mar 2026

RE SORIANO DEBBIE MANALO

Citation

[2026] HKCA 400
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP18/2023

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify a question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484, failed to particularise alleged errors such that no reasonably arguable ground was shown, and no basis existed under the "otherwise" limb; consequently the Notice of Motion was dismissed.
10 Mar 2026

FELIX KINGSLEY CHISOM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCA 131
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV596/2025

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error in the Judge’s reasoning and there was no demonstrable procedural unfairness, translation failure or entitlement to continual legal or interpretation assistance that would vitiate the decision to refuse leave.
10 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1173
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL312/2022

The leave application was dismissed because the Board conducted a hearing, interpreter services were available at hearings, the Applicant had representation before the Director, there was no established right to free legal representation or interpretation at all stages, and the Board's decision disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and therefore the Applicant's challenge was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.
18 Nov 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5360
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1704/2020

The application for leave was refused because the applicant repeatedly refused to engage with hearings despite interpretation being provided, thereby failing to discharge his duty to cooperate; the Board's adverse assessment of credibility and the resultant negative conclusion on risk were within its fact-finding province and did not amount to error of law or procedural unfairness, so there was no reasonably arguable ground for judicial review.
30 May 2025

RE DIYAH AYU ASTUTI

Citation

[2025] HKCA 471
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP196/2023

The Court refused the extension of time because the Judge’s order was sent to the applicant’s last known address and not returned, creating an inference of notice; the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness in the Board’s or Judge’s decisions; claims of lack of representation and interpretation did not establish a right or produce an arguable error; the intended appeal was hopeless, so no extension of time should be granted.
30 Oct 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1009
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV257/2024

The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any arguable errors of law or procedural unfairness in the judge's refusal of leave; interpreter services were provided at stages where required, the applicant had prior legal representation before the Director, and the court will not re-open the Board's factual assessments absent demonstrated legal or procedural error.
8 Oct 2024

RE MOHAMED GANI

Citation

[2024] HKCA 904
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV77/2022

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant's allegations were general, unsupported by particulars, and fact-specific; new complaints raised had not been presented below and could not form the basis for leave; the matters did not raise any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) HKCFAO and no 'or otherwise' basis justified leave.
30 Jul 2024

RE RASHID WALEED

Citation

[2024] HKCA 716
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP53/2023

Because the applicant's submissions were general, repetitive and devoid of specific error, and because they did not raise any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) HKCFAO, leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused and the Notice of Motion dismissed.