Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Wednesbury/unreasonableness

Legal area

Court

30 Apr 2026

EJIKE EMMANUEL SUNDAY v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2479
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL183/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the immigration officer correctly applied section 37ZO, the applicant's new evidence merely repeated or supplemented matters already rejected by the Board and did not amount to a significant change of circumstances or give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success, and there was no identifiable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director’s 2021 Notice.
9 Oct 2025

BADAL DAS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4766
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1954/2025

Leave was refused because the immigration officer correctly applied the law on subsequent claims (s37ZO), properly assessed the submitted materials, found no significant change of circumstances or realistic prospect of success, provided adequate procedural fairness including translation and referral to Duty Lawyer Service, and reached a decision that was not irrational or Wednesbury-unreasonable.
19 Aug 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3453
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1260/2020

The application was refused and dismissed because it was filed over 20 months late without any credible explanation; the Board's decision superseded the DOI decision; the Board had lawfully and reasonably assessed the evidence, including state protection and relocation, and no arguable legal error was shown, so extension of time and leave were refused.
28 Jun 2024

WISDOM WEALTH RESOURCES INVESTMENT HOLDING GROUP LTD AND OTHERS v. THE STOCK EXCHANGE OF HONG KONG LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1570
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL412/2024

The LRC's findings that the Company breached Rule 2.13(2) by failing to disclose sufficient explanation for a sevenfold increase in land valuation and that directors breached Rule 3.08 in not procuring adequate disclosure were reasonable and not Wednesbury-irrational; the imposed sanction (public statement involving criticism) was proportionate (less than public censure) and the court refused leave for judicial review
9 Jan 2024

ASLAM FARHAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 128
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1835/2023

The applicant's delay of over 1 year 5 months was inordinate and unsupported by sufficient justification; the proposed grounds were vague and lacked reasonably arguable merit because the Board and Director had not committed legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in finding the risk localized and that internal relocation and state protection were available; accordingly time was not extended and leave was refused.
31 Oct 2023

NGUYEN KHANH DUY v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2801
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1546/2023

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's assertions were vague and not reasonably arguable, he failed to provide sufficient evidence of a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success under s37ZO, and there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's decision; a Restricted Proceedings Order was warranted because the applicant had persistently sought to re-litigate a finally determined non-refoulement claim, constituting an abuse of process warranting restraint under section 27/27A and the court's inherent jurisdiction.
24 May 2023

RE PANDEY SUNIL KUMAR

Citation

[2023] HKCA 678
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV373/2022

The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Deputy Judge's refusal of leave because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility findings and factual assessments were within its remit and satisfied the applicable legal standards (including the enhanced Wednesbury test), so there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
30 Dec 2022

RE PHAM VAN TUAN

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1863
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV211/2022

The Court affirmed refusal to extend time because the applicant's application was out of time, he failed to identify any arguable public law error or procedural unfairness by the Board, there was no realistic prospect of success, and the Board's credibility and internal relocation findings were not Wednesbury unreasonable; accordingly leave was refused and the appeal dismissed.
26 Oct 2021

MUHAMMAD NABEEL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1511
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP80/2021

The applicant failed to identify any specific error of law or procedural unfairness and advanced only general bare assertions; there was no prospect of success in the intended appeal, therefore an extension of time to appeal was refused and the summons dismissed.
23 Jul 2021

UDDIN BORHAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2129
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL467/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a significant change in circumstances under s37ZO and there was no reasonable prospect of success; the Director's and Board's factual findings were not Wednesbury unreasonable or legally defective; because the applicant persistently sought to re-litigate already-determined non-refoulement claims without viable grounds, an RPO extending to leave applications was a proportionate exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process.