Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Case management and skeleton arguments

Legal area

Court

24 Jul 2024

RE DALOPE EDUARDO JR ALVAREZ

Citation

[2024] HKCA 616
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV300/2022

The refused leave was upheld because the applicant's proposed grounds were broad, vague and lacked particulars and were not reasonably arguable; there was no identifiable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's or Director's decisions (which fall within the primary evaluative role of those bodies); and the applicant's failure to comply with directions to lodge skeleton arguments constituted waiver of an oral hearing, leaving no prospect of success for judicial review.
20 Jul 2022

RE RAJA MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR MUKHTAR

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1013
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV90/2022

The Court dismissed the appeal because the applicant failed to advance any viable ground to overturn the Deputy Judge's refusal of leave: the Board and Director did not commit error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness in rejecting the non-refoulement claim, the applicant suffered no prejudice from assistance provided, and procedural default in failing to file skeleton arguments justified consideration on paper and contributed to dismissal.
15 Jul 2019

RE SHIPON MD

Citation

[2019] HKCA 716
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV35/2019

The Court held that the applicant's failure to lodge a skeleton argument justified vacating the hearing and considering the appeal on paper; the Deputy Judge correctly refused leave for judicial review because the Board is the appropriate forum with primary fact-finding powers and the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances or reasonably arguable grounds; accordingly leave for judicial review was dismissed.
8 Apr 2019

RE QASIM MUHAMMAD

Citation

[2019] HKCA 399
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV537/2018

The Court refused leave because the applicant failed to lodge the required skeleton argument (justifying vacatur of the oral hearing), and on the papers the grounds advanced did not disclose a reasonably arguable case of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or unfairness in the Director's or Adjudicator's decisions.
11 Mar 2019

BAH MOHAMED BACHIR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2019] HKCA 280
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV556/2018

Because the applicant produced documentary evidence showing the court had dispatched the wrong notice of hearing, the presumption of effective service was rebutted; the error was clerical and within the court's power to correct under Order 20 rule 11, and consequently the earlier judgment was set aside and the appeal remitted for a new hearing with proper notice and an opportunity to lodge a skeleton argument at least 28 days beforehand.
28 Jan 2019

RE MIAH MOHAMMAD SHAMIM

Citation

[2019] HKCA 84
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV386/2018

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error in the Judge's refusal of leave; the intended judicial review was not reasonably arguable and had no realistic prospect of success, and the applicant's failure to comply with the skeleton argument direction justified proceeding on paper and contributed to denial of an oral hearing.
20 Dec 2018

RE MD HASNAIN

Citation

[2018] HKCA 982
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV353/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the intended review lacked an arguable basis: the applicant had opportunity to present before the Director and the Board, there was no procedural unfairness in the absence of legal representation or a written translation, the Board's reliance on COI and finding of viable internal relocation were not unreasonable, and the Deputy Judge applied correct supervisory standards.
12 Nov 2018

RE SANDHU RANJIT SINGH

Citation

[2018] HKCA 779
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV228/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused and the appeal dismissed because the grounds advanced were unarguable: lack of legal representation at the Board did not establish a right to relief; translation complaints were speculative with no particulars; the applicant failed to raise alleged non‑receipt at the hearing and produced no additional evidence; the Director's absence did not cause prejudice; and procedural requirements including skeleton argument non‑compliance justified processing on paper.
12 Nov 2018

RE MD SUMON

Citation

[2018] HKCA 760
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV241/2018

The Court found the applicant's grounds vague and without realistic prospect of success after rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny of the Director's and Board's decisions; those decision-makers had considered the facts and law reasonably, were not Wednesbury unreasonable, and there was no procedural unfairness, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused and the appeal was dismissed.
10 Aug 2018

RE MONA

Citation

[2018] HKCA 478
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV140/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Judge and this Court found no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; the decisions reasonably assessed COI and state protection, found no real risk of persecution or torture on return, and thus the intended judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.