Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Standard of review (wednesbury/anxious scrutiny)

  • 12 Aug 2025

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

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 3561
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL590/2020

    The leave application is dismissed because it was filed out of time with no explanation and the delay was substantial, and on the merits the Board's Decision disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality so the applicant lacked a reasonably arguable claim with realistic prospects of success.

    • Non-refoulement
    • Leave to apply for judicial review
    • Limitation and extension of time
    • Procedural fairness
    • Standard of review (wednesbury/anxious scrutiny)

  • 24 May 2022

    ENOGIERU STANLEY v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

    Citation
    [2022] HKCFI 1542
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL181/2022

    Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show any significant change of circumstances that would give his subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; the Director's decision involved no error of law or procedural unfairness and was not Wednesbury unreasonable; because the applicant's conduct demonstrated an intention to re-litigate settled issues and abuse the process, a five-year Restricted Proceedings Order was justified.

    • Subsequent claim under section 37zo
    • Abuse of process
    • Restricted proceedings order
    • Standard of review (wednesbury/anxious scrutiny)
    • Credibility findings

  • 27 Apr 2022

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

    Citation
    [2022] HKCFI 964
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL419/2019

    Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board’s detailed findings; the Board lawfully concluded the claim failed all non-refoulement grounds (torture under s37U, BOR3, BOR2, and persecution under Article 33 RC) on the evidence, state protection and internal relocation were available, and there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.

    • Non-refoulement
    • Torture
    • Bor article 2 (right to life)
    • Bor article 3 (prohibition of torture/cidtp)
    • Persecution (refugee convention)
    • Internal relocation

  • 18 Mar 2022

    AWRANG AMIR MOHAMMAD v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2022] HKCA 424
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV73/2021

    The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Judge's refusal of leave because the Director and the Board lawfully and reasonably assessed the COIs, risk of harm and viability of internal relocation; there was no evidence of state acquiescence or procedural unfairness and no error of law or irrationality to justify judicial review; given available internal relocation (notably Kabul) the applicant lacked substantial grounds for believing he would face real risk of serious harm; the Judge applied appropriate enhanced scrutiny.

    • Non-refoulement
    • Internal relocation
    • State acquiescence
    • Procedural fairness
    • Standard of review (wednesbury/anxious scrutiny)
    • Leave to apply for judicial review

  • 5 May 2017

    FAR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    FAR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL76/2015

    The court held that both the Director and the Adjudicator had considered the concept of State acquiescence (including the extended form) and mental/physical suffering, relied on sufficient COI and reasoning, and their conclusions were not Wednesbury unreasonable; the additional affidavit was irrelevant and inadmissible; therefore the judicial review failed and the impugned decisions were not quashed.

    • Non-refoulement
    • Convention against torture (cat)
    • State acquiescence
    • Due diligence
    • Standard of review (wednesbury/anxious scrutiny)
    • Admissibility of evidence