Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interpreter/language assistance

Legal area

Court

14 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1987
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL583/2021

The court found no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality: audio evidence demonstrated adequate interpretation and absence of contemporaneous complaint; the Board correctly applied the law to the facts, properly assessed state protection and internal relocation and reasonably rejected risk grounds; therefore the leave application had no realistic prospect of success and was refused.
3 Apr 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1192
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL182/2017

Leave refused because the applicant's asserted grounds lack reasonable prospects: interpreter assistance was provided, absence of free legal representation at appeal was not decisive or required as of right, credibility and internal relocation conclusions of the Director and Board were not shown to be legally erroneous or procedurally unfair, so no arguable error for judicial review existed.
17 Jan 2024

RE UMAYAH SAINO

Citation

[2024] HKCA 42
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP428/2022

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance as required by s22(1)(b) HKCFAO and no basis was shown under the 'or otherwise' limb; the grounds and arguments were not viable for leave.
4 Nov 2021

HOQUE AHIDUL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1575
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV338/2021

The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision or any failure by the Judge to take account of relevant matters; therefore refusal of leave to apply for judicial review was correctly made and should be upheld.
26 Mar 2021

EBHONUN AKONJIE ALEX v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 832
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL670/2018

Leave was refused because the applicant’s grounds were not reasonably arguable: there is no absolute right to legal representation at appeal; the applicant participated in English so lack of an Esan interpreter caused no demonstrated unfairness; the Board’s evaluative findings were rational and supported by evidence and COI, including availability of internal relocation; no legal error or procedural unfairness was shown.
5 Nov 2019

RE GURUNG PURNIMA

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1178
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP195/2019

Although the one‑day delay was excusable, the application for extension of time was refused because the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success: the Board made adverse credibility findings after a hearing with a Nepali interpreter and the applicant confirmed she had no complaint about those findings, and there was no arguable public law error in the Board's or Judge's handling of the language assistance issue.
24 Jul 2019

SAMAD TARIQ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCA 810
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV46/2019

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judge's refusal of leave because the TCAB as primary fact-finder made detailed adverse credibility and risk findings which did not disclose an error of law or procedural unfairness; the absence of counsel or additional translation at the rehearing did not render the process unfair; the Director's non-attendance was not prejudicial; no arguable grounds for judicial review were established and the judge was not plainly wrong.
2 Nov 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2406
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1672/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because there was no reasonably arguable basis for judicial review: the applicant had been afforded representation and interpretation, the Adjudicator conducted a fair rehearing and his disbelief and findings were open to him, no prejudice arose from the Director's absence, COI management was not reviewable, and the statutory/precedential thresholds for leave were not met.
26 Jul 2018

RE HASMI RIZWAN IMRAN

Citation

[2018] HKCA 439
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV79/2018

No extension of time or leave under s14AA was granted because the applicant failed to provide a good explanation for delay and there was no reasonably arguable basis for judicial review: the lack of legal representation and language assistance did not render the process unfair, the Director's reasons (read with the earlier decision) were adequate for BOR2, and the Board's case management was lawful; accordingly leave and the appeal were refused/dismissed.
4 May 2018

TAMANG BHIM BAHADUR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER VIKAS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 931
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL654/2017

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because on rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny there was no error of law or procedural unfairness: the applicant had been legally assisted in preparing his claim and in proceedings before the Director, he was able to testify and was assisted at the Board hearing, the Director gave reasons in the Notice of Further Decision addressing BOR Article 2, there is no absolute right to continuous legal representation or interpreter at all times, and there is no rule requiring the Director's attendance at the Board rehearing; therefore no real prospect o…