Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Want of prosecution

Legal area

Court

14 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1993
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL954/2024

The court refused the Applicant's withdrawal application and dismissed the leave application for want of prosecution because the Applicant failed to file the required affirmation or statement and did not respond to directions within the prescribed period; on anxious scrutiny the Board's Decision disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness, so there was no basis to grant leave.
19 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1536
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2369/2023

The withdrawal application was refused and the leave application dismissed for want of prosecution because the applicant failed to comply with the Court's directions to file required confirmations; upon anxious scrutiny the Court found no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board's Decision and it was not Wednesbury unreasonable, so there was no basis to grant leave.
19 Mar 2026

ALAUDDIN MD alias UDDIN MD ALA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1535
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL68/2026

The court refused the applicant's withdrawal because he failed to comply with the directions to file an affirmation or statement confirming voluntariness, safety to return and understanding of consequences; after anxious scrutiny the court found no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness in the Board's Decision and therefore dismissed the leave application for want of prosecution.
20 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1056
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL48/2024

The Applicant failed to comply with the court's directions to file a confirming affirmation/statement; that failure demonstrated lack of intention to prosecute and, on paper scrutiny, there was no apparent error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board's Decision and it was not Wednesbury unreasonable; accordingly the court refused the withdrawal and dismissed the leave application for want of prosecution.
20 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1054
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1819/2023

The applicant's failure to comply with the Court's directions to confirm a voluntary and informed withdrawal, coupled with an absence of any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board's Decision, justified refusal of the withdrawal and dismissal of the leave application for want of prosecution.
20 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1055
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2109/2023

The applicant failed to comply with explicit court directions to file an affirmation or statement confirming voluntary withdrawal, safety to return and understanding of consequences within the time allowed; fourteen days lapsed with no response; after rigorous and anxious scrutiny the Court found no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision and that it was not Wednesbury unreasonable; accordingly the withdrawal was refused and the leave application dismissed for want of prosecution.
27 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 564
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL413/2019

Because the applicant failed to comply with the Court's directions to file an affirmation or statement proving a voluntary and informed withdrawal, and having rigorously examined the Board's Decision which disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness, the Court properly refused the withdrawal and dismissed the leave application for want of prosecution.
13 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 234
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL189/2025

The applicant failed to comply with the court's directions to file an affirmation or statement confirming that his withdrawal was made voluntarily and that he would be safe to return; in the absence of such compliance the withdrawal was not valid and evidenced a lack of intention to prosecute; further, on examination the Board's decision disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness; accordingly the court refused the withdrawal application and refused leave (dismissed the leave application for want of prosecution).
9 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6103
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1576/2021

The withdrawal application was refused and the leave application dismissed for want of prosecution because the applicant failed to comply with the court's directions to file required confirmations, thereby demonstrating lack of intention to prosecute; on the merits the Board's Decision disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness, so dismissal was appropriate.
9 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6100
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1420/2025

The Applicant's withdrawal was not validated because he failed to file the required affirmation or statement; in consequence the Court refused the withdrawal and dismissed the leave application for want of prosecution. On merits review the Court, after anxious scrutiny, found no apparent error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness in the Board's Decision and therefore no basis to grant leave.