Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Appealability of administrative decisions

Legal area

Court

30 May 2025

RAHMAN MD MIJANUR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2194
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL515/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant provided no arguable grounds, failed to demonstrate error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision, and the Director's decision was not reviewable once appealed to the Board; the Board's decision met the enhanced Wednesbury standard and the applicant's challenge had no realistic prospects of success.
7 Feb 2025

CHAN CHUNG SING v. THE REGISTRAR OF THE HIGH COURT

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 570
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL279/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant targeted the wrong decision-maker, the Director of Legal Aid's decision is in principle not amenable to review after the statutory de novo appeal to the Registrar, and the applicant failed to identify any grounds of review against the Registrar's decision making the application unarguable.
6 Jan 2025

王寬裕對高等法院聆案官鄺寶昌先生 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3696
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1156/2024

Permission refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonably arguable case with realistic prospects of success; the decision to dismiss the legal aid appeal is not susceptible to judicial review absent established illegality, Wednesbury unreasonableness or procedural unfairness, which were not shown.
23 Sept 2022

RE MUSRIATUN

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2833
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1111/2019

Extension of time was refused because the delay exceeded two months, the applicant failed to demonstrate any error by the Board or this Court or a realistic prospect of success on appeal, and the court record showed the decision had been sent to her, making the extension futile.
13 May 2021

NPYJ v. SMRC

Citation

[2021] HKFC 82
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC9098/2018

Leave to appeal was refused because the court's decision to upload a sanitized family judgment was an administrative act outside its judicial capacity and therefore not appealable under Order 59; in any event the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and there were no other reasons in the interests of justice to hear it.
10 Mar 2021

ALLY AYUBU JUMBE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2021] HKCA 251
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP150/2020

Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant was late, failed to keep the court informed of a change of address, and—critically—there was no realistic prospect of success as the Board's decision disclosed no legal or procedural error and the applicant sought to raise fresh grounds not presented below.
5 Oct 2018

RE HUSSAIN WAJID

Citation

[2018] HKCA 664
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP117/2018

Extension of time refused because the applicant provided no reasonable explanation for delay and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success: lack of automatic entitlement to legal representation did not amount to procedural unfairness absent shown prejudice; applicant demonstrated ability to participate in English or access assistance so no real prejudice from alleged lack of language assistance; Board had reheard and considered BOR2 so naming the Director was inappropriate; therefore summons dismissed and extension denied.
24 Aug 2018

RE MOSHSIN ALI

Citation

[2018] HKCA 549
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV54/2018

The deputy judge rightly refused the extension of time because the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory 'good reason' for delay and the intended judicial review had no realistic prospect of success; furthermore, once an independent de novo appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board is pursued the board's decision supersedes the director's decision so judicial review of the director is generally not available; appellate court will not disturb the board's credibility and risk assessments in absence of legal error.