Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judicial review standard (wednesbury)

Legal area

Court

27 Feb 2026

HOSSAIN LAL CHAID v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1191
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL766/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board's factual evaluation that the incidents were localized, lacked evidence of intent to kill, and that state protection and internal relocation were available was reasonable and the applicant's grounds were insufficiently particularised and not reasonably arguable.
13 May 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1318
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL97/2024

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board's adverse credibility finding and subsidiary factual findings were within its exclusive fact-finding province, the Decision contained no error of law or procedural unfairness and was not Wednesbury irrational; moreover, even if the Applicant's account were accepted, the Board lawfully concluded she was not entitled to protection and state protection/internal relocation were available, so the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.
18 Dec 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3313
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1444/2023

Section 11 of the BORO excludes the claimed BOR and CRC protections for a person without a right to enter and remain except for absolute non-derogable rights; CRC is not domesticated for immigration removals; the Board's fact findings that the risk was remote were supported by COI and evidence and were not legally flawed or irrational; accordingly the applicant failed to establish entitlement to non-refoulement protection and leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
31 May 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1342
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL834/2019

Leave was refused because the Board's findings on credibility, absence of intent by the alleged persecutor, availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation were supported by the evidence and not legally flawed; no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness was demonstrated and the applicant had no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
16 May 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1267
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL839/2019

Leave refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury-unreasonable findings by the Board; the Board's adverse factual findings were supported by the record and there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
20 Apr 2023

BUI DUC HIEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 953
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL788/2022

Refusal to extend time and dismissal of leave: 13-day delay was not adequately explained and, on merits, the intended judicial review disclosed no reasonably arguable grounds because the Board’s adverse credibility findings and conclusions about availability of state protection and internal relocation were supported by evidence and did not show legal error or procedural unfairness; therefore no prospect of success and no good reason to extend time.
20 Apr 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1014
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1126/2021

Extension of time refused because delay was substantial and applicant failed to provide adequate justification or medical evidence; withdrawal of appeal was a deliberate informed act rendering the Board functus officio; there were no reasonably arguable grounds of legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's assessment of a localized private risk and availability of state protection and internal relocation; therefore leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed.
30 Dec 2022

THANGAVEL SELVAKUMAR v. RTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3540
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL313/2019

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or the Board's decisions, the Board's adverse credibility findings were open to it after oral evidence, and the risk alleged was localized with reasonable internal relocation available, rendering the challenge without prospect of success.
25 Apr 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1118
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL919/2019

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions on state protection and internal relocation were open to it and there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
25 Jan 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 278
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL257/2019

Leave refused because the Board's adverse credibility findings were dispositive and open to the fact-finding tribunal, and even if the applicant's account were accepted the Board correctly found no real risk of ill-treatment, persecution or arbitrary deprivation of life and that state protection and internal relocation were available; therefore there was no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality to justify judicial review.