Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Language/translation assistance

Legal area

Court

26 Aug 2021

RE IFTIKHAR ALI

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1215
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP249/2019

The application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484, his complaints about translation/language assistance were not accepted as genuine or prejudicial, and his grounds were not reasonably arguable nor supported by legal authority; therefore leave is refused.
30 Aug 2019

RE SHRESTHA MUKESH DAS

Citation

[2019] HKCA 966
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV208/2019

The appeal was dismissed because the Deputy Judge correctly applied the appropriate standard of review for non-refoulement cases, properly considered and rejected the applicant's complaints about language assistance and delay, found no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's credibility findings, and the applicant failed to identify any specific error warranting interference; failure to lodge required skeleton argument justified processing the appeal on paper.
15 Jan 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 106
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL901/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to review the Director's decision, and failed to show procedural unfairness or a reasonable prospect of success as the Board and Director were entitled to evaluate evidence and make credibility determinations; therefore court intervention was not justified.
11 Jan 2018

RE ZAHID ABBAS

Citation

[2018] HKCA 15
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV216/2017

The Court held there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the high standard of fairness does not mandate automatic free legal representation beyond the duty lawyer scheme and absence of translation/representation did not establish an arguable case for judicial review; therefore leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused and the appeal dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

RE IFTIKHAR ALI

RE SHRESTHA MUKESH DAS

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

RE ZAHID ABBAS