Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Non-refoulement and torture claims

Legal area

Court

21 Aug 2025

MALLAWA ARACHCHIGE AMITHA PRIYANGANIE MALLAWA ARACHCHI v. HONG KONG SAR GOVERNMENT

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3792
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1617/2025

The application was dismissed because, applying the Hardial Singh principles, the Director proved the detention remained for the purpose of effecting removal, had acted with reasonable diligence to obtain travel documentation and to expedite the pending JR, there was a clear timetable for resolution, and the applicant's ongoing lack of cooperation and resulting real risk of absconding meant the 102-day detention was reasonable in all the circumstances.
16 Apr 2025

JUTHE CHHETRI v. PERMANENT SECRETARY FOR SECURITY

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1568
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL612/2025

The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law error: adequate reasons for the refusal were contained in internal minute M.1 provided to the applicant, the PS for S lawfully considered family and humanitarian factors and legitimately concluded they did not justify suspension or rescission of the lifelong deportation order, and any further challenge would amount to a merits review rather than a public law critique.
23 Nov 2018

RE SHAH ZAFAR ALI

Citation

[2018] HKCA 867
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP89/2018

Extension of time and leave to appeal were refused because the applicant showed both inordinate and unexplained delay, failed to discharge the duty to update his address, and could not demonstrate any reasonably arguable ground or real prospect of success on the merits of the intended judicial review; the adjudicator's decision disclosed no legal error or unfairness and was not Wednesbury unreasonable.
17 Aug 2016

ASM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

ASM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL37/2015

The court dismissed the judicial review: TCAB's refusal to allow seven-day late filing on the basis that there was no reasonable excuse was within the range of reasonable decisions and not Wednesbury unreasonable; although it was procedurally unfair for TCAB to make material adverse findings on merits and credibility without an oral hearing, that unfairness did not entitle the applicant to relief because the primary lawful basis for refusal (no reasonable excuse to extend time) remained intact; accordingly the TCAB decision stands and relief is refused.

Hong Kong Case Law

MALLAWA ARACHCHIGE AMITHA PRIYANGANIE MALLAWA ARACHCHI v. HONG KONG SAR GOVERNMENT

JUTHE CHHETRI v. PERMANENT SECRETARY FOR SECURITY

RE SHAH ZAFAR ALI

ASM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD