Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Reasonableness

Legal area

Court

9 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4635
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1767/2020

The TCAB properly considered the applicant's evidence and relevant country information, applied the correct legal principles to each ground, and reasonably concluded that none of the claimed grounds was made out and that state protection and internal relocation were available; there were no errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting interference, so the leave application is dismissed.
12 Aug 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3369
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL406/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law error: the Board applied the law correctly, its factual findings (no political motivation; availability of state protection/internal relocation; no demonstrated denial of justice) were not shown to be unlawful, procedurally unfair or irrational, and the applicant's grounds were vague and lacking realistic prospects of success.
8 May 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1757
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL483/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision and failed to demonstrate a reasonably arguable challenge with realistic prospects of success; the Board's decision provided adequate reasons.
27 Feb 2023

ABANDO ERVIN DICK PELAGIO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2023] HKCA 249
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV242/2022

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance in the Notice of Motion and there was no basis to grant leave under the "otherwise" limb of s22(1)(b); accordingly leave to appeal and the Notice of Motion were dismissed.
24 Mar 2021

RE ENOGIERU STANLEY

Citation

[2021] HKCA 403
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV276/2020

The notice of motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) HKCFAO and there was no basis under the 'or otherwise' limb to grant leave.
11 Jun 2020

CHENG YUE YEUNG v. AXA CHINA REGION INSURANCE CO LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1169
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSD9/2019

Applicant failed to demonstrate a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds with sufficient precise and believable evidence; alleged implied term and promissory estoppel were unsupported by particulars or evidence and contradicted by the written agreements; AXA validly exercised contractual termination and demanded repayment; application to set aside the statutory demand is dismissed.
17 Jan 2020

WONG WAI WING v. 孟凡蓮

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 210
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1498/2016

Applying the necessary or proper test and the broad-brush approach, the court found the hourly rates claimed were not unreasonable in light of Chief Justice approved rates, disallowed a modest 0.5 hour reduction for two attendances (PKN and Trainee Solicitor) and rejected other proposed reductions; the communications item (Item C) was reduced from HK$15,100 to HK$11,750 and the balance of the claimed costs were allowed, resulting in an award of HK$56,240 to the defendant.
8 Oct 2019

RE SUMON

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1095
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV144/2019

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify a question of great general or public importance as required by section 22(1)(b), attempted to raise a new COI ground too late, and relied on a written submission that had no appreciable relevance; therefore the statutory requirements for granting leave were not met.
2 Sept 2016

Dr U v. THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE OF THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

Dr U v. THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE OF THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL195/2015

The court exercised its discretion to depart from the usual 'costs follow the event' rule and ordered the applicant to pay 70% of the respondents' substantive hearing costs (to be taxed if not agreed) with a certificate for two counsel because the respondents' unclear position at the leave hearing and the subsequent filing of evidence materially affected the issues and led to the applicant conceding two grounds; no order was made as to costs of the leave hearing because the applicant properly sought leave on the grounds pleaded.
9 Dec 2015

Dr U v. THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE OF THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

Dr U v. THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE OF THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL195/2015

Leave to apply for judicial review was granted because the applicant's grounds were reasonably arguable with a realistic prospect of success on whether the earlier dismissal operated as an absolute bar and whether the PIC had jurisdiction and observance of procedural fairness; the issues require full adversarial hearing to determine the legal questions.