Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Procedural fairness and standard of review

Legal area

Court

28 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 558
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL188/2024

Extension of time was refused and leave dismissed because the applicant filed almost two months late without any explanation, the intended challenge lacked any identified legal error or arguable merit against the Director's and Board's decisions which withstood anxious scrutiny, and the applicant subsequently indicated she no longer opposed return to Indonesia; on those bases there was no prospect of success and no good reason to extend time.
5 Mar 2025

RE HASSAN MUHAMMAD

Citation

[2025] HKCA 214
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV464/2024

The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error of law or omission by the Judge in refusing leave; the Board's and Director's decisions were supported by the available evidence and no reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review were established.
12 Apr 2023

SALAH UDDIN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 548
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1192/2022

The Director lawfully refused permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement claim because the applicant failed to show a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success under s37ZO; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness, and a RPO was justified to prevent further abuse of process given repeated, meritless attempts to re-litigate finally determined claims.
30 Dec 2020

CHAUHAN RAM PRAVESH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2659
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL865/2018

The leave application was dismissed and time to apply was not extended because the applicant was over eight months late without credible explanation, the intended challenge lacked any reasonably arguable legal ground or identified error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director’s or Board’s decisions (which had properly assessed credibility and internal relocation), and judicial review cannot be used to re-evaluate primary factual findings in the absence of legal error.
2 Jul 2020

TUFAIL MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1427
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1065/2017

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any specific and reasonably arguable ground of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness; the Adjudicator conducted a proper rehearing, made credibility findings open to him and adhered to standards of fairness, and there was no realistic prospect of success for judicial review.
29 Jun 2018

MAMSA TARIQUE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1110
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL711/2017

There was no reasonably arguable ground of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Adjudicator's handling of the claim; their decisions were legally sound, factually supported and open to them on the evidence, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Hong Kong Case Law

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

RE HASSAN MUHAMMAD

SALAH UDDIN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

CHAUHAN RAM PRAVESH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

TUFAIL MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

MAMSA TARIQUE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]