Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Withdrawal of claim

Legal area

Court

21 Jan 2026

SAKHAWAT MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 15
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1046/2020

Extension of time refused because the applicant offered no explanation for the delay, relied on bare, unparticularised and unsupported allegations of pressure and new threats which did not show a realistic prospect of success in challenging the Board's credibility findings and decision; accordingly the application for extension and appeal out of time was dismissed.
3 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5738
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1816/2023

The Leave Application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law errors in the Board's Decision; the Board's factual findings (no real risk, availability of state protection, viability of internal relocation) were not susceptible to judicial review absent error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the intended challenge had no realistic prospects of success.
25 Nov 2025

AVILA JOYCELYN NERVEZ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5730
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL980/2021

The leave application was dismissed because it was filed out of time (three days late) with no explanation or application for extension and, in any event, the applicant left Hong Kong voluntarily so that her torture claim was treated as withdrawn under section 37ZF(1) of the Immigration Ordinance, rendering the proposed judicial review otiose; accordingly no extension of time was granted and leave was refused.
29 Sept 2025

TAPBO ENVIRONMENTAL LTD v. HONG KONG RIVER ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4537
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA611/2023

HKR failed to discharge the burden to justify departing from the general rule that costs follow the event; O.62 r.10 did not apply because there was no discontinuance without leave but an undertaking tied to an O.14A determination which saved trial time; the alleged wasted costs were insufficiently discrete or demonstrated to justify apportioning costs or awarding indemnity; accordingly the Costs Order Nisi is made absolute and neither party is entitled to costs of the summonses.
18 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4241
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1706/2020

The TCAB validly accepted the applicant's voluntary withdrawal after being satisfied it was freely sought, understood and for good reason; the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and thus has no realistic prospect of success for judicial review; the leave application was also out of time with no satisfactory explanation so no extension was granted, and leave is dismissed.
9 Jul 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2910
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL732/2020

The TCAB correctly identified and applied s.37Y(2) and s.37ZG(3) of the Immigration Ordinance, reasonably found the Applicant did not show that his failure to return the NCF was due to circumstances beyond his control, and therefore lawfully and rationally exercised its discretion to refuse to re-open the claim; no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality existed to justify leave for judicial review.
20 May 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2008
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL280/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant's Form 86 failed to identify a challengeable decision, the applicant confirmed he did not seek to challenge the Board's Decision, and the matters the applicant appeared to seek (re-opening and withdrawal issues) had already been disposed of, leaving no live issue for review.
21 Oct 2024

KOUSAR RUBINA AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2663
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1641/2021

Section 37ZF must be construed to require voluntary departure for a torture/non-refoulement claim to be treated as withdrawn; forced repatriation by the Immigration Department prior to judicial determination does not constitute "leaves Hong Kong" under s37ZF, but because the 5th applicant here voluntarily returned, s37ZF applies and his application is properly dismissed and the Official Solicitor discharged.
9 May 2024

MALKIT SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1242
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL625/2019

Leave was dismissed because the application was not made within the mandatory time limit and no explanation for the serious delay was provided, the Applicant failed to show that the Board erred in concluding there was insufficient evidence to re-open the withdrawn SCF, and the Applicant's removal from Hong Kong meant the claim was treated as withdrawn under s37ZF(1).
28 Dec 2023

BUI NGOC LAM v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3369
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1348/2020

The application was dismissed because the applicant withdrew the claim and was repatriated to Vietnam; under Section 37ZF(1) of the Immigration Ordinance (Cap.115) a non-refoulement claim is treated as withdrawn once the claimant leaves Hong Kong, leaving no live claim for the court to decide.