Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interpreter/translation issues

Legal area

Court

18 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2678
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1790/2023

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant's Form 86 lacked clear grounds and particulars, the supporting affirmation was vague, the Board's findings of fact showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the intended challenge was not reasonably arguable; the applicant's handwritten letter was treated as a withdrawal and the matter was decided on the papers.
13 Jan 2025

NANIK TRI WARNITA alias WARNITA NANIK TRI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 266
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1791/2023

The Board and Director made lawful, rational and procedurally fair assessments that the Applicant’s claimed risk was localized, undermined by credibility concerns and delay, and that reasonable internal relocation and state protection were available; the Applicant failed to particularize arguable grounds of error and later confirmed she could safely return, therefore there was no prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed.
13 May 2022

RE HASAN MOHAMMAD MEHEDI

Citation

[2022] HKCA 679
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV5/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board had extensively examined the evidence, there was no demonstrated error of law or procedural unfairness, the Board's findings were not Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational, and the applicant had no realistic chance of success.
9 Apr 2021

RE SHEIKH MD ROMJAN

Citation

[2021] HKCA 485
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV455/2020

The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Deputy Judge's refusal of leave or in the Board's decision; the Deputy Judge applied the correct legal principles, examined the materials with appropriate scrutiny, and properly excluded fresh evidence not previously presented to the primary decision makers.
3 Mar 2021

FAKHRUDDIN MD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2021] HKCA 213
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP117/2020

Short delay was acceptable but the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success because his grounds were broad, vague and unparticularised, no error of law or procedural unfairness was demonstrated in the judge's or Board's decisions, and new grounds could not be entertained on appeal; therefore extension of time was refused.
17 Mar 2020

HKSAR v. FAUSTINO HIDALGO CESARIO

Citation

[2020] HKCA 132
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC206/2019

Extension of time to seek leave to appeal was refused because the applicant offered no satisfactory explanation for an inordinate delay and showed no substantial or plainly arguable ground of appeal; the sentence was correctly imposed following sentencing guidelines and appropriate discount for guilty plea; the forfeiture order for Exhibit 12A (US$600) is valid under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance and the court's order to return Exhibit 12B remains operative though the funds were transferred to the Treasury and may be challenged by civil claim or judicial review.
10 Aug 2018

RANA JASWANT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1606
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1074/2017

The intended judicial review had no realistic prospect of success because the Director and the Board applied the correct legal tests, there was no substantiated unfairness from lack of counsel, lack of translation, or non-attendance of the Director, and the risk claims were properly dismissed on lack of corroboration, availability of state protection and viable internal relocation; therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
29 Jun 2018

MAQSOOD AHMED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1436
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL896/2017

Leave refused because rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny disclosed no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions: applicant's evidence was found not credible and insufficient, state protection and reasonable internal relocation were available, and the procedural complaints (lack of legal representation, translation, Director's attendance, reasons on BOR 2) were without merit or factually unfounded, giving no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
22 Jun 2018

HKSAR v. MUHAMMAD SAQIB

Citation

[2018] HKCA 367
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC232/2015

The application for an appeal aid certificate was refused because the applicant's complaints did not constitute reasonably arguable grounds of appeal: the jury directions on identification were adequate in the circumstances; the asserted alibi evidence did not contradict the identification evidence; alleged interpreter omissions were insignificant and monitored by bilingual counsel; the Punjabi document was made available and any response was a matter for counsel; and directions concerning D5 were adequate.
4 May 2018

ZAMAN MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 948
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL905/2017

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to show any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness by the Director or the Board: COI supported availability of state protection and internal relocation, the applicant had legal assistance in preparing his claim and declined to give evidence at the Board hearing, and the asserted procedural defects (no legal counsel at Board, no translation of NCF, Director's absence) did not amount to a breach of the high standard of fairness or a legal error; therefore no prospect of success existed.