Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Standard of review (wednesbury/unreasonableness)

Legal area

Court

17 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6285
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1781/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants relied on bare assertions without supporting evidence or particulars, failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness that could lead to success on judicial review, and the Board's findings were within its fact-finding remit and supported by evidence and lawful reliance on country of origin material; consequently there was no realistic prospect of success to justify granting leave.
11 Apr 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1506
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2358/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to specify any arguable ground; the Board’s findings on credibility, state non-involvement, availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation were factual determinations within the Board’s province and showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, so the proposed judicial review lacked realistic prospects of success.
23 Dec 2024

RE NGO THI HONG

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1173
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP474/2022

Extension of time was refused because the applicant's delay of over six weeks was substantial and unexplained, the Leave Decision had been sent to her address, the intended appeal lacked any real prospect of success or arguable grounds (Board's factual findings and credibility assessments were lawful and within its province), and it would be futile to extend time; therefore the summons for leave to appeal and extension of time was dismissed.
22 Aug 2024

RE UBONGEN LEANNE PALMA AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCA 791
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP376/2023

Short delay notwithstanding, extension of time was refused because the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success: the Board lawfully and rationally assessed evidence and COI, made fact findings open to it and there was no demonstrable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality to justify judicial review; minors' non-compliance with next friend representation treated as mere irregularity and did not alter outcome.
11 Jun 2024

RE BAIT FLETCHER JADE BESQUILLO

Citation

[2024] HKCA 511
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV40/2024

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error of law or procedural unfairness in the Judge's refusal of leave; the Board had considered COI and reasonably concluded internal relocation eliminated the real risk; lack of legal representation or limited English did not establish procedural unfairness and no oral hearing was requested so the Judge properly determined the application on the papers, meaning there was no realistic prospect of success.
13 Mar 2024

RE TRINH THE CONG

Citation

[2024] HKCA 226
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP40/2023

Extension of time to appeal was refused and the application for leave to appeal dismissed because the applicant's delay of almost three months was substantial with no good reason, the proposed grounds were new, general and without particulars, and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success given no error of law or procedural unfairness by the Deputy Judge or the Board.
19 Jul 2023

RE CHINEDU EMMANUEL ABALOGU

Citation

[2023] HKCA 853
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP147/2022

The Court refused the extension of time because the short delay was unsupported by a good reason, the intended appeal had no real prospect of success as there were no arguable public law grounds attacking the Board’s credibility-based findings, and the Judge had properly applied rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny; granting extension would be futile.
23 Jun 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1633
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL949/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's findings on credibility, low level of risk, absence of state involvement, availability of state protection and internal relocation were supported by the evidence and did not disclose a realistic prospect of success.
11 May 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1212
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL797/2019

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success: the Board's findings on credibility, country information, state protection and internal relocation were within its fact‑finding province, involved no error of law or procedural unfairness, and were not Wednesbury unreasonable.
18 Apr 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 835
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL792/2019

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision to refuse an extension of time; the short unexplained delay and absence of new or meritorious grounds (including a final failure on BOR 3) meant there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.