Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Wednesbury/irrationality review

Legal area

Court

5 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 717
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1406/2020

The application for leave was dismissed because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground of judicial review or to disclose material facts; the TCAB/NRCPO's assessment of credibility and risk fell within its fact‑finding discretion and was not shown to involve procedural unfairness, error of law or Wednesbury irrationality sufficient to justify review.
6 Nov 2025

SHERPA RENJAL v. NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5170
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL855/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the TCAB/NRCPO properly dismissed the appeal following a valid voluntary Withdrawal Letter making the Board functus officio, the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law error, and the application was filed over four years out of time with no good reason to extend time.
20 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3552
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1434/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds in Form 86 or Affirmation, there was no demonstrable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the NRCPO decision, the delay in filing was not insubstantial and remittal would be futile.
30 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4161
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1286/2020

The application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds of review, the TCAB/NRCPO decision withstands rigorous enhanced Wednesbury scrutiny (no procedural unfairness, error of law or irrationality as to credibility, risk, state protection or internal relocation), and the leave application was filed over two years out of time with no good reason to extend time; extension refused.
19 Sept 2022

RE HARBHAJAN SINGH

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1344
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV207/2022

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the refusal of leave because the Judge correctly found no arguable public law grounds: the Board's factual and credibility findings (no minimum level of severity, no subsequent violence, availability of state protection and viable internal relocation) involved no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.
24 Aug 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2527
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL671/2019

Leave refused because the Board's decision involved no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality: the Board reasonably concluded the applicant faced a low level of risk, state protection was available, internal relocation was viable, and therefore the applicant had no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
19 Sept 2016

NS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

NS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL26/2016

Leave was refused because the DOI and Adjudicator applied the correct legal tests, adequately considered COI and state protection, and made rational and adequately reasoned adverse credibility findings which disposed of the claim; the intended grounds of review were not reasonably arguable.
7 Oct 2015

LI WAI HUNG CESARIO v. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS BOARD

Citation

LI WAI HUNG CESARIO v. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS BOARD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL18/2015

The judicial review is dismissed: the Board lawfully and reasonably confirmed the Public Officer's refusal to grant a mahjong licence. The 100m measure is a flexible administrative yardstick not a fixed legal requirement; the Board was entitled to adopt the Public Officer's findings, to take police input into account, and provided adequate reasons in context; there was no unlawful restriction of the Board's de novo appellate powers.
29 May 2001

POST VANESSA JANE v. NOMURA INTERNATIONAL (HONG KONG) LTD.

Citation

POST VANESSA JANE v. NOMURA INTERNATIONAL (HONG KONG) LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA7259/1997

The Staff Handbook was incorporated into the plaintiff's contract making bonus entitlement discretionary absent a formal individually agreed plan; the plaintiff failed to prove any binding collateral or subsequent agreement to a formula-based bonus and the defendant's decision not to award a bonus was not irrational given the company’s negative results and the team’s assessed loss (including indirect and market-making costs and a 15-month bonus period); accordingly the plaintiff's contractual and alternative discretionary claims fail.