11 May 2026
余欣德 對 行政上訴委員會 私隱專員公署 [Decision on Leave Application]
- Citation
- [2026] HKCFI 2727
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCAL758/2026
申請人未能就擬提出的司法覆核申請顯示出可合理勝算或真實成功機會；委員會及公署的行為在法律上並無可撼動之錯誤或超出申請人許可申請所及之範圍，因此拒絕給予司法覆核許可及拒絕暫緩聆訊。
Hong Kong Case Law
Administrative appeals
17 Nov 2025
WOO TAK YAN v. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS BOARD
- Citation
- [2025] HKCFI 5455
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCAL114/2016
The application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant had taken no active steps for over eight years, the underlying decision and the Board’s decision were substantially stale (around ten years old), and the claim lacked sufficient merit to justify further use of court resources, warranting dismissal as an exercise of case management discretion.
21 Oct 2025
SINGH SUKHVINDER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
- Citation
- [2025] HKCFI 4688
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCAL1868/2020
The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonably arguable claim or realistic prospect of success, and did not show any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB Decision which had considered the evidence and applied the correct legal principles.
20 Jun 2024
PRIAPSON SOMBUN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
- Citation
- [2024] HKCFI 1527
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCAL576/2024
Because the applicant voluntarily withdrew the application and there was nothing outstanding, the court dismissed the application for leave, applying the authority in Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471.
15 Mar 2021
RAJIB UDDIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
- Citation
- [2021] HKCFI 614
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCAL1100/2020
The court dismissed the leave application because the applicant filed an affirmation requesting cancellation and demonstrated no intention to pursue judicial review, making dismissal appropriate rather than allowing the application to proceed.
7 Apr 2017
A v. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS BOARD AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- A v. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS BOARD AND ANOTHER
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCAL244/2016
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the AAB and the Privacy Commissioner made open and reasonable findings that PathFinders was not a data user and that the disclosure was made by the principal case officer in her personal capacity, so there was no reasonably arguable case for judicial review and the s39(2)(d) discretion was lawfully exercised.
19 Nov 2015
尹照華 v. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND CONSERVATION
- Citation
- 尹照華 v. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND CONSERVATION
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMP1085/2015
HCMP 1085/2015 is stayed pending determination of HCAL 165/2014 because HCAL 165/2014 was commenced earlier and is more advanced and ready for hearing, it permits consideration of legislative materials not considered by the Board, and staying promotes cost‑effectiveness, expedition and appropriate deployment of judicial resources; the court exercised its case management power under the cited rules to order the stay.
11 Nov 2015
CHEUNG MOON HOI v. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS BOARD
- Citation
- CHEUNG MOON HOI v. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS BOARD
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCAL118/2014
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show an arguable case that the AAB's costs order was unlawful: the AAB acted within its statutory jurisdiction, its factual findings that the applicant and his authorised representative conducted the appeal in a frivolous and vexatious manner were supported by the record and not Wednesbury unreasonable, and no sufficient evidence of bias or procedural irregularity was shown to justify review.
14 Apr 2000
HARJIT KAUR AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- HARJIT KAUR AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCAL47/1999
The Director's refusal was upheld because he gave a clear primary reason (insufficient financial capability and accommodation) and that reason was not procedurally flawed; however the Secretary for Security's decision was quashed because she acted on a Restricted Memo containing adverse material not shown to the applicants and thereby denied them a fair opportunity to respond, rendering her decision procedurally unfair and invalid.