Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Re-opening of claims

Legal area

Court

31 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6469
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL606/2021

The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to pursue the statutory appeal route and failed to satisfy the statutory requirement in s37ZG(3) to demonstrate due diligence for not returning the SCF; absent exhaustion of the statutory appeal and requisite evidence, there was no legal or procedural basis to substitute judicial review for the prescribed appeal mechanism.
11 Jul 2025

CHOWDHURY AL MOMIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2063
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL212/2020

The leave application was dismissed because the Board validly found the applicant failed to return the completed Questionnaire required by section 37Y(2), there was no evidence the failure was caused by circumstances beyond his control to justify re-opening, and no procedural or public law errors were demonstrated; therefore the intended judicial review was not reasonably arguable.
9 Jul 2025

BRAR SUKHWINDER SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2910
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL732/2020

The TCAB correctly identified and applied s.37Y(2) and s.37ZG(3) of the Immigration Ordinance, reasonably found the Applicant did not show that his failure to return the NCF was due to circumstances beyond his control, and therefore lawfully and rationally exercised its discretion to refuse to re-open the claim; no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality existed to justify leave for judicial review.
30 Jul 2024

RE ALI LIAQAT

Citation

[2024] HKCA 714
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP355/2022

Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant's delay was substantial, he failed to provide any credible or corroborated explanation for the delay (including failure to rebut service at his reported addresses), and the intended appeal had no real prospect of success as the Leave Decision and underlying Board/Director decisions were legally sound; accordingly extension would be futile and prejudicial to respondents and public administration.
12 Jul 2023

ANI SRI KURNIANTI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1806
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL177/2019

Leave was granted because it was reasonably arguable that the Board (i) failed to conduct its own rehearing and factual findings but instead adopted the Director’s conclusions, and/or (ii) reached its conclusion by speculation about availability of contact means and the applicant’s English ability without adequate evidential basis, thereby raising serious issues of procedural unfairness and breach of the high standards of fairness required in non-refoulement determinations.
25 Apr 2023

RE LUTFIANA

Citation

[2023] HKCA 583
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP315/2022

Extension of time refused because delay was substantial (about nine months/283 days), applicant provided no satisfactory explanation for the delay, the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success since there was no valid change of circumstances and no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board’s or Judge’s decisions, and granting extension would be futile and prejudicial to good administration.
24 May 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 603
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL590/2018

Leave was refused because the Director and the Board acted within the statutory framework, afforded the claimant reasonable opportunities and notices, and lawfully refused to re-open the claim in the absence of sufficient evidence that failure to return the SCF was due to circumstances beyond the claimant's control; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness with a realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

Hong Kong Case Law

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

CHOWDHURY AL MOMIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

BRAR SUKHWINDER SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

RE ALI LIAQAT

ANI SRI KURNIANTI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

RE LUTFIANA

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