Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Standard of proof

Legal area

Court

13 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2701
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2910/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision and did not show a realistic prospect of success; the Board was entitled to take a different view based on the evidence and its findings were within its fact-finding remit.
12 May 2026

MATHARU HARDEEP SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCA 928
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV241/2026

The Judge's refusal to extend time and to refuse leave was correct because the intended judicial review had no reasonable prospect of success; the Board properly applied the applicable standards of proof, its adverse credibility findings were justified on the evidence, and there was no procedural unfairness or misapplication of law warranting intervention.
22 Apr 2026

BENY PURNOMO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2222
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL990/2021

The leave application is dismissed because it was filed out of time without explanation and, on the merits, the Board's decision disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and therefore the applicant failed to show a reasonably arguable claim with realistic prospects of success.
15 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1977
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1561/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was granted because the leave materials show arguable errors of law and procedural unfairness by the Board: application of an inappropriate approach to standard of proof for credibility, categorical dismissal of hearsay, inadequate reasons for rejecting the four incidents (and failure to give the applicant opportunity to address adverse findings), undue reliance on the applicant's use of a false passport for a global adverse credibility finding, and failure to consider cumulatively the incidents and submitted country-of-origin information; those errors make…
15 Apr 2026

SYAHRUL JANUAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2106
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1251/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to particularize or advance any valid grounds capable of demonstrating a reasonably arguable claim with realistic prospects of success; the Board provided full and detailed reasons, correctly applied the law and key principles, made permissible findings on internal relocation, COI and COVID risk, and there were no errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial intervention.
15 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2117
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2370/2023

The court refused the applicant's attempt to withdraw and dismissed the leave application because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal grounds and the Board's decision, after anxious scrutiny, disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and was not Wednesbury unreasonable; therefore leave is not reasonably arguable and must be refused.
6 Mar 2026

嘉信大廈業主立案法團 v. 張笑媚

Citation

[2026] HKCA 312
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV33/2026

Section 50 of the High Court Ordinance applies to appeals from the Lands Tribunal in contempt cases so no leave was required; on the evidence the only reasonable and irresistible inference was that the respondent remained in control, custody or possession of the IO documents and properties and intentionally disobeyed the Delivery Up Order, therefore contempt was proved beyond reasonable doubt; the sentencing exercise was not wrong in principle and the custodial sentence was justified; costs awarded on indemnity basis.
4 Mar 2026

COMPETITION COMMISSION v. GRAY LINE TOURS OF HONG KONG LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCT 1
Court

Competition Tribunal
Case number

CTEA1/2022

Section 6 of the Ordinance should not be read as extending to conduct that amounts to facilitation (aiding and abetting) by undertakings not active on the relevant market where the Ordinance separately provides for such involvement in section 91; section 91 establishes accessorial liability and requires proof of knowledge and intent; because the Commission did not plead an alternative case under section 91 the enforcement action under section 6 must be dismissed. The Tribunal further held that, had it accepted that section 6 extended to facilitation, the evidence would have established facili…
26 Feb 2026

香港特別行政區訴李勇智

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 477
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA107/2025

On re‑examination of all evidence the court found the witness’s testimony consistent with post‑collision photographs and that the appellant’s account contained material, contradictory statements; therefore the prosecution proved careless driving beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction was safe and must be upheld.
26 Feb 2026

香港特別行政區訴徐玉蘭

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 484
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA442/2024

The trial judge properly rejected the appellant's evidence as inconsistent and implausible; the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant, knowing of the dog's prolonged and serious condition, unreasonably failed to obtain veterinary treatment causing unnecessary suffering; on re‑hearing the High Court reached the same conclusion and dismissed the appeal.