Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Appeal vs judicial review

Legal area

Court

29 Apr 2026

KHAN MUHAMMAD AQIB v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2345
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1414/2021

Leave was refused because the Director's decision was superseded by the Board's decision and therefore not reviewable, and because the applicant failed to show any error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness in the Board's decision; the challenge was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.
20 Nov 2025

SAIF UR REHMAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5623
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL195/2021

Leave was dismissed because the Applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Director's earlier decision was not reviewable after appeal to the Board; notice was properly issued to the address provided and it was appropriate to proceed in the Applicant's absence; the Board provided adequate reasons and satisfied the enhanced Wednesbury standard.
29 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4509
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2397/2020

The leave application was dismissed because it was filed significantly out of time (about seven months) without any explanation and the proposed challenge to the Board's Decision was not reasonably arguable; additionally, the Director's decision was no longer reviewable once appeal to the Board was pursued and the Board's Decision displayed adequate reasons and no reviewable error.
28 May 2025

謝松發對土地審裁處第五法庭審裁成員 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1745
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL703/2025

Permission refused because the grievance concerned a Land Tribunal decision properly challenged by appeal; the applicant failed to demonstrate an arguable case or to show how an adjournment would have altered the outcome and did not provide particulars or evidence to support serious allegations, so there were no reasonable grounds for judicial review.
6 Jan 2025

王寬裕對高等法院聆案官許家灝先生 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3697
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1361/2024

The court refused permission because the applicant's challenge did not have reasonable arguability or realistic prospects of success; the decision challenged was either within the scope of statutory finality/appeal mechanisms under the Legal Aid Ordinance and the applicant improperly sought to use judicial review as a second appeal, and no arguable grounds of illegality, Wednesbury unreasonableness or procedural unfairness were shown.
27 Mar 2024

LAU CHO WING v. CHEN SHU HUI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 574
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2283/2023

The application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the matters complained of were either decided by a judicial order made on evidence and submissions (remediable by appeal) or were procedural points that could have been raised in the underlying possession proceedings; the applicant failed to identify reasonably arguable public law grounds for review and the writ was represented by the respondent as an official sealed copy with the original filed with the Bailiff Section.
30 Nov 2023

ANEES-UR-REHMAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2981
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1192/2019

Leave refused because the Director's Decision had been superseded by the Board's Decision following appeal, the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success on judicial review of the Board's factual credibility findings or its conclusions on state protection and internal relocation, and no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was shown.
6 Jul 2021

ARALIYA KANKANAMGE NADEEP SURANGA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMNT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1949
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL867/2019

The application was dismissed because the 25 February 2019 letter was not a decision susceptible to judicial review and, insofar as the applicant intended to challenge the Director's Notice dated 13 October 2017, the application was time‑barred by one year and two months with no valid explanation or arguable merits to justify extension; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
7 Aug 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1933
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL360/2018

The Form 86 was filed 52 days out of time with no explanation; the applicant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success because the Adjudicator had considered the full record, conducted an oral hearing, and the non-refoulement claim was inherently weak on the facts and credibility; accordingly there was no basis to grant an extension of time or to grant leave to apply for judicial review and the application was refused.
7 Aug 2020

SAGAYADORO NANETTE SAGADRACA AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1928
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1010/2017

The court refused leave and any extension of time because the applicants provided no adequate explanation for the long delay and their non-refoulement claim was extremely weak with no reasonably arguable basis; the Adjudicator acted within lawful discretion in determining the appeal on the papers and in holding a hearing only where necessary, so there was no realistic prospect of success of a judicial review challenge.