Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Wednesbury/unreasonableness review

Legal area

Court

9 Dec 2025

NGUYEN TRUONG GIANG v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6112
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2267/2025

The Director’s refusal to allow a subsequent claim was lawful because the applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success as required by s37ZO; prior unchallenged findings on low risk, availability of state protection and internal relocation remained valid; the applicant’s grounds were vague and not reasonably arguable so there was no error of law or procedural unfairness. Given the applicant’s repeated attempts to relitigate finally determined non‑refoulement claims, a RPO under s27 and the court’s inherent j…
5 Jun 2025

ALI RAMZAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2242
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL603/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant’s grounds were bare, vague and lacked necessary particulars; the Board and Director made reasoned findings of low, localized risk, available state protection and reasonable internal relocation; material credibility concerns were identified; no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality was demonstrated such that judicial review should intervene.
29 May 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2199
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL520/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the Applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board provided adequate reasons and satisfied the enhanced Wednesbury test, and the Director's decision was superseded by the Board and therefore not reviewable.
25 Apr 2023

MAROOF AHMED v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1018
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL359/2023

The application for leave was refused and time extension denied because the applicant offered no adequate explanation for a substantial delay, his proposed grounds were vague and not reasonably arguable or meritorious, and the Director’s refusal to permit a subsequent claim fell within lawful exercise of s37ZO given prior final adverse findings, lack of credible new evidence of significant change, and continued availability of state protection/internal relocation; because the applicant persistently sought to relitigate finally determined non‑refoulement issues, a five‑year RPO was justified t…
7 Oct 2022

AKINBOBOLA IDOWU ALEXANDRA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3096
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL828/2022

The Director lawfully refused the subsequent non-refoulement claim because the applicant failed to demonstrate a significant change in circumstances under s37ZO or present credible, personal risk evidence giving a realistic prospect of success; consequently leave to apply for judicial review was refused and a Restricted Proceedings Order was justified to prevent abuse of process.
26 Jul 2022

ZAHEER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2275
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL526/2022

The Director's Decision was lawful and not Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally unfair; the subsequent claim failed the statutory s37ZO threshold because it relied on the same or similar facts and produced no significant change giving a realistic prospect of success; therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused and an RPO is necessary to prevent abuse of process.
20 Jan 2022

ISLAM MAJHARUL v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 48
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1671/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances under s37ZO that, together with prior material, would give his subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; the Director's and Board's findings were not Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally unfair; an RPO was justified and ordered to prevent abuse of process because the applicant was attempting to re‑litigate previously determined facts to remain in Hong Kong.
6 Dec 2021

PREETY PAL SINGH alias PRETTY PAL SINGH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3508
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1470/2021

The Director's decision was lawful and not Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally unfair; the subsequent claim did not show a significant change of circumstances under s37ZO giving a realistic prospect of success; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused and an RPO was necessary to prevent abuse of process by relitigation of the same claim.
25 Mar 2011

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN TAT KI

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN TAT KI
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1543/2010

The Court found on the balance of probabilities that the Controller of the GFS exercised his contractual discretion honestly and in good faith and that the defendants failed to prove fraudulent misrepresentation by Ms Tang; accordingly the repayment obligation under the Offer Letter, Undertaking and Guarantee was enforceable, judgment was entered for the plaintiff for HK$790,902.76 plus interest, and the defendants' counterclaim was dismissed.