Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Standard of judicial review (wednesbury)

Legal area

Court

5 Nov 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2934
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1439/2021

The Applicant's request to withdraw was refused because he failed to comply with court directions to affirm that the withdrawal was voluntary and that it is safe for him to return; having scrutinised the Decision and the materials, the court found no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision and therefore dismissed the leave application for want of prosecution.
11 Sept 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2227
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1190/2019

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board's findings that past ill‑treatment was low intensity, state protection was available, internal relocation was viable and the creditor was unlikely to carry out threats were lawful and not Wednesbury unreasonable, so there was no realistic prospect of success.
21 Jun 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1674
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL938/2019

Leave was refused because the court found no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board gave adequate reasons, identified material discrepancies in the applicant's account, reasonably assessed documentary and COI evidence, and the applicant had no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
30 Dec 2021

SHAFI IBRAR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3768
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1605/2021

The Director's decision refusing the subsequent claim was lawful: the additional material was either hearsay or did not amount to a significant change of circumstances under section 37ZO and the decision was neither Wednesbury unreasonable nor procedurally unfair; consequently there was no realistic prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review was refused. Given the history and tendency to re-litigate identical facts, a Restricted Proceedings Order was necessary to prevent abuse of process.
2 Jul 2020

HUSSAIN SADA v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1318
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1036/2018

Leave refused because the applicant's grounds were vague and unparticularised and did not identify any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's decisions; the primary decision-makers lawfully assessed credibility, found risk localized and internal relocation reasonable, and their conclusions were within range of reasonable outcomes so no prospect of success on judicial review existed.

Hong Kong Case Law

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

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

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

SHAFI IBRAR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

HUSSAIN SADA v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]