Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prohibition of torture and cidtp (hkbor article 3)

Legal area

Court

1 Apr 2026

SANTHANAM CHANDRAKUMAR alias JEYARASA MATHANARAJ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1867
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2899/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board conducted a fair hearing, the applicant did not apply to call the proposed witnesses or disclose their expected evidence, the Board's adverse credibility and fabrication findings were open to it on the evidence, and there were no substantial or strong grounds for the claimed risks; absent error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality the court will not overturn the Board's fact-finding.
11 Feb 2026

ANGGANA DANIS PRATAMA EGGA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 571
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2715/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision, the Board had comprehensively examined the evidence and made adverse credibility findings, and the applicant did not demonstrate a realistic prospect of success.
9 Dec 2025

ESTRADA CAMILLE AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5127
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL999/2024

Leave refused because applicants failed to show any realistic prospect of success; the Board's factual findings were not irrational or legally erroneous and the asserted risks were speculative and unsubstantiated; procedural non-compliance was a mere irregularity and did not nullify the applications.
1 Dec 2025

VU MINH TRONG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5607
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1160/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to show any arguable or realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions that state protection and internal relocation were available were factual determinations within the Board's province and were not shown to involve error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness amenable to judicial review.
21 Feb 2023

SARNIAWATI BT SARIM ABU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 358
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL42/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Court found no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board reasonably accepted the core facts but concluded the risk was private, state protection was available and internal relocation was viable, and the applicant had no realistic prospect of success.
17 Aug 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2405
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL678/2019

The applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions on state protection and internal relocation were within its fact‑finding remit and supported the outcome, so there was no reasonable prospect of success and leave was refused.
4 May 2022

SEPTI ADITIYANING RAHAYU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1204
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL910/2019

The Board provided adequate reasons and made fact findings within its province; there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality in its decision that the applicant had not established a real risk of torture or other proscribed harm and that state protection/internal relocation were viable, therefore the applicant had no realistic prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
3 Jun 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1010
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL75/2019

Applicant failed to show any error of law or fact by the Board or any breach of procedural fairness that would give rise to a realistic prospect of success on judicial review; authorities confirm limited scope for challenging adjudicator fact findings and no automatic entitlement to representation or continuous interpretation; therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused.