Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judicial review threshold

Legal area

Court

19 May 2026

RE RANA RITU

Citation

[2026] HKCA 982
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV215/2026

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s decision; the Board’s adverse credibility findings and assessment that state protection and internal relocation were available were within its primary fact-finding remit, and the Judge correctly refused leave as the proposed judicial review had no real prospect of success (the short delay in filing was immaterial to the outcome).
15 Nov 2019

FARID v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1267
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV247/2019

The Court of Appeal held that the Judge did not err in law and correctly concluded the appellant failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances under s.37ZO(2) and therefore had no realistic prospect of success; the Judge's refusal of leave was lawful and the appeal was dismissed.
5 Aug 2019

RE MOMOTAZ

Citation

[2019] HKCA 868
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV63/2019

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to raise any question of great general or public importance under s 22(1)(b) Cap 484; the applicant had voluntarily and deliberately withdrawn her appeal such that the Board was functus officio and had no jurisdiction to re‑open it; the proposed appeal was devoid of merit and did not meet statutory criteria for leave.
13 Sept 2016

TSUI KIN CHUNG v. THE REGISTRAR OF THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL AND ANOTHER

Citation

TSUI KIN CHUNG v. THE REGISTRAR OF THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL121/2016

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Registrar's refusal to accept the notice of motion was lawful given statutory provisions precluding a direct appeal to the CFA after refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal, the Applicant failed to show illegality, ultra vires or Wednesbury unreasonableness, and the Court of Appeal's decision is not subject to judicial review.
15 May 2014

JARIABKA JURAJ v. HKSAR

Citation

JARIABKA JURAJ v. HKSAR
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL52/2014

The applicant failed to meet the high threshold for criminal judicial review because the trial judge had considered the circumstances and provided for on‑trial interpretation and the availability of appellate review provided an adequate alternative remedy; therefore the court should not interfere by staying the proceedings.
16 Aug 2013

AGUILAR JOENALYN ELMEDORIAL v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

AGUILAR JOENALYN ELMEDORIAL v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV225/2012

The court refused leave to appeal because question (1) did not arise and was fact sensitive, and question (2) concerning the construction of the immigration policy was not reasonably arguable; accordingly the criteria in s.22(1)(b) Cap.484 for leave or referral were not met.
11 Jun 2010

HONORCAN LTD v. THE INLAND REVENUE BOARD OF REVIEW

Citation

HONORCAN LTD v. THE INLAND REVENUE BOARD OF REVIEW
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL7/2010

The Board was entitled and obliged to apply a qualitative threshold under s.69(1) to ensure only proper and arguable questions of law are stated; given the Board's unchallenged factual findings that the payments were not for export quota and were not paid over to the quota holders, the proposed deductibility question was plainly unarguable and therefore not a proper question of law, so the Board's refusal to state a case was lawful and the judicial review is dismissed.
4 Aug 2006

CHINA MAP LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

CHINA MAP LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIA4/2005

The Board of Review's decision was not contrary to the true and only reasonable conclusion and was supported by evidence; s.68(4) places the onus on taxpayers to prove the assessment excessive and the Board properly dismissed the appeals for failure to discharge that onus; the Board did not err in law by not making positive findings that the taxpayers were carrying on a trade.