Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Torture claim appeals

Legal area

Court

15 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4717
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2252/2020

Because the applicant admitted he withdrew his three torture claims and did not provide a statement of his case, the Director was correct to take no further action; the applicant should have appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board before applying for judicial review and his failure to do so constituted an abuse of process, therefore the leave application is struck out.
26 Jun 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2669
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL651/2020

The court amended the Form 86 to name the correct respondent and decision, accepted the applicant's affirmed withdrawal as made freely, and dismissed the leave application without deciding the merits to ensure the action is not left at large.
3 Sept 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2147
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL262/2022

Because the applicant voluntarily applied to withdraw his leave application and there was nothing outstanding in the action, the correct order under authority is to dismiss the application rather than leave the action at large, and therefore leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed.
20 Oct 2023

RE PANAGODA LIYANAGE SURANGA DULIP PERERA

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1201
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV129/2023

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any question of great general or public importance as required by s22(1)(b) Cap.484, relied on grounds concerning only his personal circumstances that were not raised previously, advanced bare allegations of unfairness without particulars, and the arguments were not arguable on the merits; statutory requirements for leave were therefore not met.
23 Dec 2022

RATHNAYAKA MUDIYANSELAGE JAGATH PRIYANTHA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1856
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV212/2022

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the complaint about lack of legal/language assistance was a new ground not raised earlier, no question of great general or public importance was identified under s22(1)(b) HKCFAO, and the intended appeal lacked merit and a reasonable prospect of success.
6 Sept 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2695
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1376/2021

The applicant withdrew his application for leave; applying Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471 the proper course is to dismiss the application, therefore leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed.
21 Jun 2022

AI DODOH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1550
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1223/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant withdrew the application and the court, following authority, exercised its discretion to refuse relief as the application had become otiose and would serve no practical purpose.
6 Dec 2021

RE AGAMA GEORGE HINNEH

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1845
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP86/2018

The application for leave to appeal out of time was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide any adequate explanation for an inordinate delay and failed to identify any question of great general or public importance such that the Court should exercise its discretion to extend time or grant leave under section 22(1)(b).
2 Nov 2021

RE MENDES NELSON

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3138
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1562/2018

Extension of time was refused because the applicant failed to show a realistic prospect of success—the Board's decision contained no legal error or procedural unfairness and its factual findings were not Wednesbury unreasonable—therefore there was no basis to extend time and the application was dismissed.