Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Standard and burden of proof

Legal area

Court

6 May 2026

BUTWONG CHANAPA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2508
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL256/2026

The court dismissed the leave application and refused the applicant's request to withdraw because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal ground; the Board's factual findings and assessment of COI, state protection and internal relocation were within its remit and did not disclose error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; therefore there were no realistic prospects of success for judicial review.
10 Apr 2026

RE MANDOL POBITRO

Citation

[2026] HKCA 619
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV74/2026

The appeal was dismissed because the applicant advanced new, fact-and-evidence sensitive grounds not raised below without explanation and relied on general, bare and vague allegations lacking specific particulars or evidence, so there were no viable grounds to reverse the Judge's refusal of leave.
27 Feb 2026

NESAR MOHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCA 352
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV405/2025

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error by the judge with sufficient particulars; the grounds advanced were vague, lacked substance and did not justify reversing the refusal of leave, and the Court will not rehear the Board's decision on the merits in an appeal against refusal of leave.
19 Sept 2025

YUEN TSZ CHUN FRANK and CHAN HOI YAN, the Joint and Several Liquidators of RZ3262019 LTD (in Liquidation) v. ZHOU YING INVESTMENTS GROUP LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4350
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1589/2024

The court dismissed the defendants' striking out applications because it was not plain and obvious that the PRC Retrial Judgments had determined the same issues required for issue estoppel given material differences in standard and burden of proof and absence of clear findings on control and conspiracy; condition of identity of issue therefore failed. The court also held relief (2) was not plainly non-restorative or lacking Hong Kong connection on the evidence and refused to strike out paras 94.2/94.4 as not demonstrably covered by without prejudice privilege. The case-management stay was ref…
4 Jul 2025

RE VU THE HAI

Citation

[2025] HKCA 603
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV202/2025

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to particularise any arguable public law error; his assertions were general, vague and unsubstantiated, and the Judge correctly held that the Board reasonably and fairly assessed credibility, COI, state protection and internal relocation such that leave to apply for judicial review and extension of time were properly refused.
28 Apr 2025

SHIKDAR BABU MD PARVEJ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1717
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1965/2023

The Board lawfully applied the USM and assessed credibility; significant and material inconsistencies, omissions and lack of corroboration rendered the Applicant not credible on core issues; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness and the Decision was not irrational under the enhanced Wednesbury test; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the proposed challenge had no realistic prospect of success.
13 Feb 2025

NOLASCO MARIDEL SAMSON v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCA 80
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV410/2024

The Court of Appeal affirmed the judge's refusal of leave because the applicant failed to advance any reasonably arguable ground to challenge the Board's adverse credibility findings and did not demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; therefore leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused and the appeal was dismissed.
10 Jan 2025

RE SITI RUMANI

Citation

[2025] HKCA 62
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV516/2024

The Court dismissed the appeal, holding the Judge correctly refused leave because the Board's adverse credibility and factual findings fell within its primary province and no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was demonstrated; the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.
24 May 2024

PALABRICA LANNE BONCALES v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1433
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2373/2023

Extension of time and leave were refused because the Applicant gave no explanation for the short delay, the proposed judicial review raised no arguable legal errors (the Board correctly applied the law, afforded fair process and made fact findings that were not Wednesbury unreasonable), and the application had no realistic prospect of success.
16 Nov 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2964
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2039/2020

Leave refused because the Court found the Board applied the correct legal tests, fairly considered and rationally weighed the evidence and COI, correctly concluded state protection was available and that the applicant failed to establish a reasonably arguable case of persecution or real risk of BOR 2/BOR 3 violations; no error of law or irrationality was shown.