Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Oral hearing entitlement

Legal area

Court

22 Apr 2026

RE LAKHWINDER SINGH alias LAKHWINDER SINGH KULWANT SINGH

Citation

[2026] HKCA 669
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV1218/2025

Although the judge erred in determining the leave application on the papers despite a specific request for an oral hearing, the Court of Appeal exercised the discretion afresh, subjected the Board's Decision to anxious scrutiny, found no unlawful or Wednesbury-unreasonable conduct and concluded the applicant failed to meet the threshold for leave; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused and the appeal dismissed.
3 Nov 2025

MD MOAZZEM HOSSAIN v. NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3011
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL884/2020

Leave was refused because the Applicant was significantly out of time (11 months and 29 days) with no documentary justification, the Adjudicator lawfully considered available materials and exercised discretion, and no arguable public law error, procedural unfairness or irrationality was shown making the proposed JR not reasonably arguable.
11 Aug 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2433
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL183/2022

Extension of time was refused because the applicant was seven months late without satisfactory explanation and his intended grounds were broad, vague and lacking in arguable merit; the Director and the Board committed no legal error or procedural unfairness in finding state protection and internal relocation available, therefore there was no prospect of success and leave was dismissed.
10 May 2021

GURSEWAK SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1321
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL338/2021

Extension of time and leave were granted because the Applicant demonstrated arguable merits: the Board failed to engage with or explain rejection of the Applicant's Notice of Appeal and grounds and did not give reasons for refusing an oral hearing, making it reasonably arguable that procedural fairness and the high standards required for non-refoulement decisions were not met, thereby justifying leave and extension of time.
26 Mar 2021

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

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 838
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL687/2018

Leave refused because the applicant failed to establish reasonably arguable grounds: the BOR 2 claim was not properly engaged on the pleaded facts, no arguable unfairness arose from lack of representation or language assistance, the Board lawfully exercised its statutory power to refuse late filing for lack of satisfactory explanation, and the Director and Board made lawful and rational findings on credibility, state protection and internal relocation such that no legal error was shown.
5 Mar 2019

DELOAR HOSSAIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2019] HKCA 259
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV491/2018

The Court held the Board and the Judge applied correct legal principles: no absolute right to an oral hearing existed, the Board lawfully concluded no worthwhile or effective oral representations would be made, the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonably arguable case of procedural unfairness or error of law, and therefore there was no prospect of success in a judicial review; leave was refused and the appeal dismissed.
24 Dec 2018

RE CASWATI

Citation

[2018] HKCA 988
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV415/2018

The Court held that the Board and Director did not commit procedural unfairness in deciding the appeal on paper without an oral hearing, the applicant was not deprived of legal representation at the Director stage, internal relocation and state protection made non-refoulement protection unnecessary, and there was no realistic prospect of success so leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused.
21 Dec 2018

RE RAHAMAN MOHAMMAD FAZLUR

Citation

[2018] HKCA 815
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV322/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's grounds were largely bare, lacked particulars, and were not reasonably arguable; the Board had considered relevant COI and reasonably found state protection and internal relocation available, and the Judge correctly concluded there was no error of law or procedural unfairness and that the decision met the enhanced Wednesbury standard.
22 Aug 2018

RE VIKAS

Citation

[2018] HKCA 520
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV149/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because the Board was entitled to treat the BOR 2 issue on the papers given a prior oral hearing and fresh written submissions, the applicant did not identify any specific further evidence he would have given at a rehearing, and there was no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness making the intended judicial review reasonably arguable.
14 Aug 2018

RE HUSSAIN SADAM

Citation

[2018] HKCA 483
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV120/2018

The Court agreed with the Deputy High Court Judge that there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions: the applicant had screening assistance from the Duty Lawyer Scheme, the Board lawfully decided the appeal on paper after proper consideration, state protection and internal relocation were reasonably available and the claim did not meet the thresholds for BOR2, BOR3, persecution or torture; therefore the intended judicial review had no reasonable prospect of success and leave was refused.