Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Wednesbury review

Legal area

Court

14 Jan 2026

RENI OCHTAFIANA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 274
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1726/2024

The leave application was dismissed because it was filed out of time with no application for an extension and, on anxious scrutiny, the Board's decision was free of legal error, procedural unfairness and irrationality; the applicant's case lacked reasonable prospects of success and thus did not satisfy the threshold for grant of leave.
9 Jan 2026

BUHION AIZA CANOY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 166
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL505/2020

Refusal to extend time: the applicant incurred a substantial delay of over three months and offered no explanation; the intended appeal disclosed no arguable ground of error of law or reasonable prospect of success following rigorous anxious scrutiny of the TCAB decision; and granting an extension would cause needless prejudice to the respondent. Accordingly the application for leave to appeal out of time was refused and the summons dismissed.
11 Nov 2025

NAWAZ MUHAMMAD v. NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5227
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1341/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Form 86 failed to identify any arguable grounds and, on anxious scrutiny, the NRCPO decision contained adequate reasons and lawful assessments of credibility and risk such that no reasonably arguable public law errors were shown.
12 Jul 2023

HASSAN WALEED v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1765
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL548/2023

The Director's refusal was lawful: there was no significant change of circumstances under section 37ZO and no error of law or procedural unfairness; the Director's factual findings were not Wednesbury unreasonable; therefore there was no realistic prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review was refused. Because the applicant demonstrated a pattern of re‑litigation with no new merits and an intention to abuse process to remain in Hong Kong, a Restricted Proceedings Order was necessary and appropriate.
11 Apr 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 776
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1368/2022

Extension of time was refused because the applicant incurred a serious unexplained delay of about five months and the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success; the Director's decision to refuse the subsequent claim was not shown to be legally flawed, procedurally unfair or Wednesbury unreasonable, so leave was denied and the application dismissed.
9 Sept 2022

RE BUI VAN DAI

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1289
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV266/2021

Relief from sanction was refused because the Summons was filed after the 14‑day limit with a substantial unexplained delay and, in any event, the proposed appeal was bound to fail on its merits (no arguable grounds); consequently the court would not exercise its discretion to set aside the sanction and leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused for failure to identify any question of general or public importance under s22(1)(b) CFAO.
19 Jul 2022

MOHAMMED BASHIRU alias BAH MOHAMED BACHIR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2074
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL163/2022

The Director's decision dismissing the subsequent claim was lawful: the applicant relied on the same or similar facts, failed to show a significant change of circumstances under s.37ZO and therefore had no realistic prospect of success; there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness. Given the procedural history and repeated re-litigation, a Restricted Proceedings Order was necessary to prevent abuse of process.
30 Jun 2022

RE IRANGAN ARIEL SUABILLO

Citation

[2022] HKCA 956
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV549/2021

The application is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify specific legal errors and relied on generalized, repetitive submissions amounting to a re‑run of prior arguments; such general assertions do not justify relief or referral to the Court of Final Appeal.
21 Jan 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 236
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL465/2019

Extension of time for the leave application was refused and the application dismissed because the delay was substantial (about 14 months), the applicant provided no explanation for non-attendance and no grounds in support, the Board lawfully proceeded in her absence after statutory notice, there was no error of law or procedural unfairness and no realistic prospect of success given the Board's findings which were not Wednesbury unreasonable.
8 Oct 2021

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

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2976
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1244/2021

Applicant failed to show a significant change of circumstances under section 37ZO that, together with prior material, would give his subsequent non‑refoulement claim a realistic prospect of success; the Director's decision was not legally flawed or Wednesbury unreasonable, therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused; an RPO is justified because the applicant is attempting to re‑litigate the same facts and would likely abuse the court process.