Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interpreter services

Legal area

Court

2 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1738
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL602/2022

Applying the enhanced standard of scrutiny appropriate in non‑refoulement cases, the court found interpreter services were provided at hearings, the Board conducted a hearing and gave comprehensive reasons, the applicant's allegations were vague and without particulars, and there were no errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; accordingly the proposed judicial review was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success and leave was refused.
30 Mar 2026

LYONS MARY JANE TICANO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1722
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL569/2022

The leave application was dismissed because the alleged lack of legal representation and language assistance did not render the Board's process unfair: there is no absolute right to free legal representation or interpretation at all stages, the Applicant had representation before the Director, documents were in English and interpreter services were available, and there was no complaint at the Board hearing; accordingly no error of law or procedural unfairness was shown.
8 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 102
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2487/2020

The application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed because the applicant has not demonstrated a reasonably arguable case with a realistic prospect of success; the TCAB had properly considered the evidence, applied the correct legal principles, made a supportable adverse credibility finding, and reasonably concluded that state protection and internal relocation were available, with no established error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
7 Dec 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3052
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1459/2019

The applicant failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success on judicial review because the Board's adverse credibility findings, and its conclusions that state protection and internal relocation were available, involved no error of law or procedural unfairness; thus leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
29 Mar 2023

RE SHERPA CHHIRI

Citation

[2023] HKCA 421
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP328/2022

Extension of time refused because the CALL-1 Form was sent to the applicant's last known address and not returned (presuming receipt), the applicant failed to provide a reasonable excuse or explain delay or change of address, and the intended appeal was hopeless as no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness was identified; complaints about lack of representation and English proficiency did not show real prejudice and did not render the Board's decision unlawful or Wednesbury unreasonable.
17 Mar 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCA 364
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP410/2022

The Court refused extension of time because the applicant was substantially late without adequate explanation, was required to show a real prospect of success but advanced no viable grounds (and sought to raise new grounds on appeal), and the judge correctly found no error of law or procedural unfairness given interpreter provision, absence of entitlement to free legal representation, and the applicant's responsibility for his chosen postal address.
8 Sept 2022

RE HUSSAIN SHABBIR

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1313
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP54/2022

Extension of time refused because the applicant's five-month delay was substantial and unexplained, he failed to identify any viable errors in the Leave Decision or any realistic prospect of success on appeal, and his new fact-sensitive allegations were inadmissible and without merit.
29 Aug 2019

RE GOLE SURYA

Citation

[2019] HKCA 978
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP20/2019

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant's stated matters did not constitute valid grounds of appeal, had been addressed previously or lacked reasonable prospects of success, interpreter services were available and documents were in English, and the matters did not meet the statutory threshold of general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484.
7 Mar 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 543
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL768/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Adjudicator's adverse credibility findings were supported by identified inconsistencies, there were no errors of law or procedural unfairness, the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable, and the applicant's complaints were not reasonably arguable or likely to succeed on judicial review.
9 May 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 855
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL618/2017

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Adjudicator and Director acted reasonably and lawfully: the Applicant failed to show any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or bias in the Adjudicator's handling of the BOR 2 claim, the Applicant had been given opportunity to present evidence and notifications were properly sent or the Applicant failed to show non‑receipt, and the BOR 2 claim lacked a realistic prospect of success.