Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Representation of minors

Legal area

Court

13 Apr 2026

RE VALDEZ LIBRADA AMPARO AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCA 495
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV177/2025

The appeal is dismissed because the applicants failed to identify any error in the Judge's refusal to extend time or in his conclusion that the intended judicial review had no real prospect of success; the Board's factual findings and assessments were within its discretion and not irrational or procedurally unfair, and the 2nd applicant's lack of legal representation was an irregularity that did not render the proceedings a nullity.
1 Apr 2026

NGUYEN THI THU HONG AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1965
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2114/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review is refused: the 1st and 2nd applicants' leave application was out of time and, independently, the intended judicial review has no realistic prospect of success; the 3rd applicant's leave application is without merit. The Board's findings that the threat was private, not Convention‑related, did not reach required severity, and that state protection and internal relocation were available are lawful and rational.
19 Mar 2026

SALAS JENNYLYN CAJAPE AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2026] HKCA 480
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV284/2025

The Court dismissed the appeal: the Deputy High Court Judge did not err in refusing leave because the Board had adequately considered the appellants' claims including separate consideration of the minors; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness, the applicants produced no reliable evidence to rebut the Board, and the absence of legal representation for the minors was a mere irregularity properly treated under Order 2 rule 1, such that there was no reasonable prospect of success.
11 Feb 2026

GALLEGO VALDES EMMANUEL (a minor) by his mother and next friend ANZOLA SANCHEZ YESICA DANIELA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 873
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1468/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board properly assessed credibility, state protection and internal relocation, met high standards of fairness in handling a minor's claim despite lack of representation, and there was no basis for the court to usurp the Board's factual risk assessment.
15 Jan 2026

MAGO SHYR ADAME AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 327
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2080/2023

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board correctly applied the law, fairly assessed and tested the evidence, made fact-findings within its exclusive province, and there was no demonstrable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality (including failure to satisfy the enhanced Wednesbury test); the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.
23 Dec 2025

CALUZA MARIA LOURDES GALANG AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1147
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP182/2024

The application for extension of time is dismissed: the 1st Applicant identified no arguable grounds; the 2nd Applicant’s delay was inexcusable and her proposed grounds (statelessness and procedural unfairness due to lack of counsel) are speculative or not reasonably arguable and do not demonstrate a real prospect of success, so extension is refused.
3 Dec 2025

SIKDAR RATNA AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5502
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL221/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was granted and time extended because it was reasonably arguable that the Board's decision was tainted by procedural unfairness (failure to warn the 1st applicant about adverse consequences of delay and to give opportunity to address perceived inconsistencies) and that the Board failed to assess the 2nd applicant's claim separately and with the highest standard of fairness; despite unexplained delay the court exercised discretion to extend time in the interests of fairness.
1 Sept 2025

RE HATULAN AILYN DEL ROSARIO AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCA 779
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV239/2024

The appeal is dismissed because the applicants failed to identify any viable legal ground to overturn the Judge’s refusal of leave; the Board’s adverse credibility and risk assessments were within its primary fact‑finding remit and were not shown to be legally erroneous, irrational or procedurally unfair; the minor’s lack of legal representation was an irregularity that did not vitiate the proceedings because no additional or viable minor‑specific grounds were identified.
28 Aug 2025

RE SITI NGAISAH AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCA 725
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV359/2024

The appeal is dismissed because the applicants failed to identify any viable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Judge’s refusal of leave; the Board’s adverse credibility findings and conclusions as to adequate state protection and lack of real risk were within its province and were not liable to supervisory intervention; the minors’ claims were dependent on the 1st applicant’s rejected evidence and were separately considered by the Board, and the absence of legal representation was a mere irregularity not warranting leave or remittal in the circumstances.
25 Jun 2025

RE NUPUR MST AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCA 583
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV346/2024

The appeals were dismissed because the applicants failed to identify any viable legal ground to reverse the Judge's refusal of leave; the Board's adverse credibility findings and assessments of risk, state protection and internal relocation did not disclose errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; and the minor's lack of independent legal representation was a mere irregularity given the Board separately considered the minor and no plausible minor‑specific grounds remained.