Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Procedural requirements for judicial review

Legal area

Court

6 Jan 2025

ALI ZULFIQAR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 175
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2458/2024

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements for leave (no grounds specified and no verifying affidavit), and the application was filed out of time without explanation or any application for an extension of time; additionally, no reasonably arguable public law grounds with a realistic prospect of success were identified.
15 Mar 2023

單莉雅對勞杰民

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 788
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA36/2023

The summons was dismissed because the applicant failed to comply with mandatory judicial review procedures (no permission, no Form 86), failed to specify the decision or public function to be reviewed, failed to plead facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and attempted to pursue remedies that belong in the family court or by appeal, rendering the proceedings legally and procedurally untenable.
5 Jul 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1769
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1200/2020

Where an applicant withdraws an application for leave to apply for judicial review and there is nothing outstanding, the correct disposal is to dismiss the application rather than leave the action at large.
19 Aug 2021

NGUYEN THI THOA 對酷刑聲請上訴委員會／免遣返聲請呈請辦事處 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2412
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL499/2021

The court refused to extend time and refused permission to apply for judicial review because the applicant provided no adequate explanation for delay and the underlying claims were unarguable: the evidence showed a private debt dispute without state involvement, injuries did not meet the statutory threshold for torture, there was no legal or procedural error by the Board or the Director, and the subsequent claim did not demonstrate material change under s37ZO(2).
21 May 2021

FERNANDEZ LONILYN MABASA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2021] HKCA 704
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV436/2020

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to establish admissibility of fresh evidence under Ladd v Marshall and to show exceptional circumstances or public importance under s22(1)(b); the new evidence was untimely, related to events predating last entry, lacked explanation for delay, and even if accepted would not have undermined the Director's findings on available internal relocation, so no arguable merit or question warranting the Court of Final Appeal was shown.
26 Aug 2020

ASIF FAROOQ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2053
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL5/2018

Applicant failed to give an acceptable explanation for the delay and for non-receipt of court documents which were presumed delivered; the underlying application lacked merit and did not raise a realistic prospect of success; considering the statutory factors (delay, reasons, prospects, prejudice) it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension of time, so the summons dated 29 July 2020 is dismissed.
20 Sept 2019

BHOPINDER SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2351
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL624/2017

The extension of time was refused because the applicant was grossly out of time, failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay or to keep an up-to-date address, correspondence was sent to the addresses on record, and the underlying judicial review application disclosed no arguable grounds; applying the statutory factors (length of delay, reasons, prospects, prejudice) it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension.
23 May 2018

SARAH VICTOR v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1108
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL608/2018

The applications were dismissed because no reviewable decision had been made on the dependent visa application (rendering the challenge premature), the Forms 86 failed to identify any decision and were therefore defective, previous non-refoulement determinations precluded re-opening the same issues, the statutory appeal regime and detention reviews applied and the applicants suffered no prejudice from not appealing a removal order whose grounds would inevitably fail; accordingly the applications were not reasonably arguable.
25 Jan 2018

莊裕安 v. 高院上訴排期主任吳素蘭及另一人 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 132
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL950/2017

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the application was not reasonably arguable, the bilingual composition of the bench caused no prejudice and the Form 86 failed to identify any grounds for relief.