Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judicial review - wednesbury unreasonableness

Legal area

Court

16 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4213
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1988/2023

The Board correctly applied the law, fairly assessed primary evidence and COI, made factual findings that the applicant's past injuries were minor and part of a private debt dispute without public official involvement, reasonably concluded state protection would be available, and thus there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting interference; accordingly the leave application has no realistic prospect and is refused.
18 Feb 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 675
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL488/2022

The Board's factual findings were supported by the record and objective COI, there was no error of law or procedural unfairness, the applicant affirmed he no longer faced risk, and therefore the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success; leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
11 Feb 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 599
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2510/2024

Leave refused because the Applicant raised no arguable errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the Board's credibility findings and conclusion that state protection and internal relocation were available are factual and within the Board's exclusive province, and the Decision satisfies the enhanced Wednesbury test so there is no realistic prospect of success.
9 Dec 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3452
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL201/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board applied the correct legal principles, gave a fair hearing, made findings of fact for which there was objective support, and its Decision was not legally erroneous, procedurally unfair or Wednesbury unreasonable, so the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.
27 Feb 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 614
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL361/2019

Leave refused because the Board’s Decision contained no detectable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the Board properly assessed credibility, applied relevant legal tests (including torture threshold), and relied on credible COI to conclude state protection and internal relocation were viable, so the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.
2 Nov 2023

NGUYEN THI NGOC HA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2825
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL625/2023

Leave was dismissed because the applicant’s grounds were vague, lacked necessary particulars and were not reasonably arguable; the Director and Board made findings open to them on the evidence (low risk, private dispute, availability of state protection and internal relocation); no legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness was established and the applicant confirmed it was safe to return, thus no prospect of success for judicial review.
17 Mar 2020

BALKAR SINGH v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 278
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL370/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was granted because it was reasonably arguable that the Board failed to give adequate reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s appeal after he refused to give oral evidence; in the absence of any adverse credibility finding the Board should have proceeded to analyse the claim on the basis that it was plausible, rendering the Board’s reasons potentially insufficient and meeting the threshold for leave as established in precedent.
25 Jun 2019

MANGOBA MELODY PIEDAD AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 899
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1680/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the adjudicator's decision was lawful, provided detailed and adequate reasons, accepted the applicants' evidence on credibility, and reasonably found effective state protection and viable internal relocation such that there was no real risk of torture, CIDTP, persecution or breach of the right to life; no error of law or procedural unfairness disclosed and no realistic prospect of success.
24 Jun 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 898
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1677/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the adjudicator properly conducted a rehearing, made detailed findings of significant inconsistencies and adverse credibility which rationally supported rejection of all four grounds, and there was no error of law or procedural unfairness and thus no realistic prospect of success.
16 Jul 2018

MUSAFAQOH v. YU CHEUK-MAN, ESQ. [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1562
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL126/2018

The application for leave was refused because the applicant failed to return the completed claim form by the extended deadline, the withdrawal notice was served in person, and the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to show circumstances beyond her control to justify reopening. The Director and Adjudicator lawfully and reasonably refused to reopen the claim; there was no procedural unfairness and no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.