Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Unreasonableness

Legal area

Court

28 May 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2150
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL291/2020

Leave dismissed because the applicant failed to particularise any legally arguable ground; the Board applied the law correctly, its factual findings (including credibility, lack of serious injury, availability of state protection and internal relocation) disclosed no public law error, and the claim was withdrawn, leaving no realistic prospect of success.
28 May 2025

陳覺威對上訴委員會（房屋）

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2246
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2420/2024

Leave refused because the supporting affidavit was conclusory, the transcript and recordings showed the appeal committee conducted a proper hearing and asked reasonable questions to assess continuous residence, the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law error or procedural unfairness, and the proposed judicial review had no prospect of success.
10 Nov 2022

WOO TAK YAN v. SECRETARY FOR CIVIL SERVICE

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1624
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV230/2022

The Court held the applicant's inserted words did not constitute a real, true or valid signature demonstrating assent; all relevant documents and opportunities to be heard had been provided; no material irregularity or unfairness was established; any technical departure from s12 did not cause substantive prejudice and would not justify granting leave to apply for judicial review; accordingly leave was refused and the appeal dismissed.
25 May 2022

HARVINDER KAUR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2022] HKCA 711
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV507/2020

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484 and the grounds advanced were not sufficiently particularised or reasonably arguable; errors relied on that relate only to the Board's decision and not to the Court of Appeal judgment are not viable grounds of appeal.
20 Apr 2021

ISLAM MOHAMMAND NAZRUL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2021] HKCA 344
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV167/2020

The applicant's motion for leave to appeal was dismissed because he did not identify any error of law in the Court of Appeal's judgment nor any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484, and provided no persuasive basis under the 'otherwise' ground; therefore leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused.
20 Apr 2021

JAG BAHADUR CHHANTYAL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2021] HKCA 346
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV184/2020

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any error in the Court of Appeal's judgment or any question of great general or public importance as required by s22(1)(b) Cap 484; the statutory threshold for granting leave was not met.
12 Aug 2020

JUM ALIE v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2016
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1086/2017

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any legally arguable grounds; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness by the Director, the decision was open on the facts and eminently reasonable, and therefore there was no realistic prospect of success.
19 Sept 2019

RE KHAN MD OMAR

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1049
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV155/2019

The application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is dismissed because the applicant's grounds did not raise a question of great general or public importance nor did they show a reasonably arguable merit to reverse the Court's main judgment, thus failing the requirements of section 22(1)(b) of Cap 484.
17 Jul 2019

RE SHAMSHER SINGH

Citation

[2019] HKCA 754
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV582/2018

The notice of motion for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) HKCFAO and failed to provide particulars or supporting materials; the written submission was generic and irrelevant and did not establish a proper basis for leave.
17 Apr 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 706
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL661/2017

Leave was granted because there was a reasonably arguable basis that the Adjudicator acted unfairly or unreasonably by indicating the appeal would be decided on the papers but then failing to consider it on that basis, giving the applicant a realistic prospect of success on judicial review.