Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mootness/otiosity

Legal area

Court

20 May 2026

KASFIYA KAMRUN NAHAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2899
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1797/2025

The leave application is dismissed because the applicant confirmed she can safely return to her home country, removing the factual basis for non-refoulement protection and rendering any judicial review otiose; the application to withdraw was refused to avoid leaving the action at large and the court therefore disposed of the matter by dismissal.
13 May 2026

TO VAN LY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2739
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL788/2023

The court refused the applicant's attempt to withdraw the Leave Application on the basis that withdrawal should not be allowed to leave the action at large and proceeded to dismiss the Leave Application on the substantive ground that the applicant's non-refoulement claim had become otiose because he confirmed his issues in Vietnam were resolved and it was safe for him to return, so any remedy would serve no practical purpose.
13 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2733
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1333/2022

The leave application was dismissed because it was filed out of time with no explanation (no extension granted under the AW criteria) and, in any event, the claim had become otiose as the applicant withdrew and confirmed it was safe to return to Vietnam; withdrawal was refused as an order to leave the action at large is inappropriate, so the proper disposal was dismissal of the leave application.
13 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2744
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1891/2023

The applicant's own confirmation that it was safe to return to Indonesia removed the factual basis for her non-refoulement claim, rendering the proposed judicial review otiose; accordingly the court refused the applicant's request to withdraw and dismissed the leave application rather than leaving the action at large, applying authority that remedies serving no practical purpose may be refused and that withdrawal where nothing remains should lead to dismissal.
13 May 2026

RIA AMELIA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2742
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1876/2023

The court refused the applicant's attempt to withdraw and dismissed the leave application because the applicant's stated resolution of issues and removal from Hong Kong meant there was no practical risk of refoulement; therefore granting leave or any remedy would be otiose even if legal errors existed in the Board's decision.
6 May 2026

RANTIKA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2575
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1908/2023

The court refused the applicant's request to withdraw but dismissed the leave application on the ground that the applicant's issues had been resolved and she had been removed from Hong Kong, rendering any grant of leave otiose; accordingly there was no practical purpose in granting judicial review even if errors were alleged in the Board's decision.
6 May 2026

CHANDOBAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2574
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1890/2023

The court refused the applicant's attempt to withdraw the leave application and proceeded to dismiss the leave application on the ground that the claim had become otiose because the applicant confirmed her issues had been resolved and had been removed from Hong Kong, so any judicial review would serve no practical purpose even if errors existed in the Board's decision.
15 Apr 2026

NASIR SAEED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2059
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL948/2025

The court refused the applicant's withdrawal and dismissed the leave application because the applicant had confirmed the issues were resolved so that any remedy would be otiose; accordingly it was an appropriate exercise of discretion to decline to grant leave even if legal errors were alleged.
15 Apr 2026

HUSSAIN MOHAMMAD TAUQIR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2073
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1485/2024

The Leave Application is dismissed because the applicant confirmed it is safe to return to his country, removing the basis for non-refoulement relief and rendering any grant of leave otiose; accordingly the court refused the applicant's request to withdraw but dismissed the leave application on grounds of practical purposelessness.
15 Apr 2026

ASTUTI YUNI PUJI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2061
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1040/2023

The application to withdraw the leave application was refused and the leave application was dismissed because the applicant confirmed it was safe to return to Indonesia, rendering the non‑refoulement claim otiose; accordingly, granting leave would serve no practical purpose even if there were arguable errors in the Board's decision. The court also amended the putative interested party to the Director of Immigration.