Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Wednesbury unreasonableness

Legal area

Court

20 May 2026

INDAH PUJI ASTUTI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2888
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1352/2023

The applicant failed to plead specific, particularised grounds of legal error; the Board lawfully and fairly assessed the non-refoulement claim, made permissible factual findings and reasonably concluded there was no real risk of proscribed harm and that internal relocation was viable; the intended judicial review had no realistic prospects of success; accordingly the court refused the withdrawal and dismissed the leave application.
20 May 2026

SALAUDDIN MD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2903
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1907/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable ground with realistic prospects, the Board's decision contained full reasons and was free of legal error, procedural unfairness and irrationality, and the applicant failed to establish a real risk of torture, death or persecution or state acquiescence such that intervention by the court was warranted.
20 May 2026

BUAKHOM ACHIRAVAT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2945
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL39/2022

The Board's decision was lawfully reached, contained full reasons, did not involve errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the applicant failed to advance any reasonably arguable claim with realistic prospects of success; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
20 May 2026

ZUNAID AKHTAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2799
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1480/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to establish a reasonably arguable claim with realistic prospects; the Board's Decision exhibited no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and its factual findings (risk, state protection, internal relocation) were within the Board's remit and reasonable.
20 May 2026

CHHETRI SABITRI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2887
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL623/2023

The applicant's request to withdraw was refused and the leave application was dismissed because the Board's Decision, after anxious scrutiny, disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the applicant was found not credible, her case lacked realistic prospects of success, and therefore leave to apply for judicial review was not justified.
20 May 2026

DAVAADULAM, MYAGMARJAV v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2906
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL482/2026

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds; the Board's decision demonstrated no error of law, procedural unfairness, or irrationality after anxious scrutiny, including proper assessment of credibility, country information and internal relocation, and therefore the statutory test for granting leave was not met.
20 May 2026

KALIMUTHU PAZHANICHAMI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2946
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1054/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to particularise any arguable grounds for judicial review; the Board conducted a proper hearing, made credibility and risk findings within its fact‑finding remit, correctly applied legal tests under the USM, and the decision contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting intervention.
20 May 2026

BUI THI THU v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2816
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1925/2023

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the Director's decision was superseded by the Board's decision, the Board's decision contained detailed, lawful reasoning on COI, state protection and internal relocation, the applicant's grounds were vague and lacked particulars and therefore had no realistic prospects of success, and the court refused the applicant's request to withdraw and proceeded to dismiss the leave application.
20 May 2026

TOBOCMAN, DAVID CORY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2927
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL349/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify reasonably arguable grounds with particulars, the challenges complained of were factual findings within the Board's exclusive fact-finding remit, and no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was demonstrated; the Board gave adequate reasons and satisfied the applicable legal standards including the enhanced Wednesbury test.
20 May 2026

RAMAVANT RAVI MOHANDAS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2908
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL229/2026

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to advance any arguable legal grounds; the Board's findings on credibility, risk, state protection and internal relocation were within the Board's fact‑finding remit, were supported by evidence and COI, and showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality under the enhanced Wednesbury standard, so the claim lacked realistic prospects of success.