Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Children's rights

Legal area

Court

24 Apr 2025

BOLANOS ANJENETTE LOMAWON AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1639
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1255/2019

The court granted extension of time and leave to apply for judicial review because the applicants met the threshold of being reasonably arguable on grounds that the Board failed adequately to assess internal relocation and failed to consider minors' claims separately and with child-sensitive inquiry; despite some errors on credibility, those did not defeat the specific child- and relocation-related legal issues that justified leave. The court directed issuance of originating summons and service within a specified period.
15 Apr 2025

NGUYEN THI DUNG AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCA 345
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV231/2024

The Court dismissed the appeal: the deputy judge correctly refused leave because the applicants advanced no viable legal ground to show the judge erred; the Board’s adverse credibility findings and assessment that internal relocation and state protection were viable were not irrational or legally flawed; the 3rd applicant’s claim had been given separate consideration by the Board and lacked a reasonable prospect of success despite procedural irregularity in representation which the Court treated as non‑fatal.
7 Nov 2024

SULIYATI AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3088
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL404/2019

Although delay was inordinate and unjustified, leave and extension were granted because the Board erred in law by failing to separately and adequately assess the minor's personal circumstances and any child-specific non-refoulement bases and failed to consider the impact on the primary carer; the intended challenge was reasonably arguable and met the leave threshold.
7 May 2024

RIRIS TANTI WILUJENG AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1231
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL285/2019

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board and Director reasonably found no real risk of serious harm and that internal relocation and state protection were available, so judicial review was not appropriate to re‑hear the merits.
23 May 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1314
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL827/2019

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to show a realistic prospect of success: the Board's credibility findings and conclusions that state protection and internal relocation were available were within its fact-finding province, there was no demonstrated error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality, and therefore no arguable ground for judicial review.
4 Apr 2023

NAMUBIRU PERRY AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 837
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL867/2021

The court found the proposed grounds for challenge reasonably arguable: for A1/A2 the Board failed to take account of the merits when refusing late filing under s37ZT(2)(b) and relevant authorities required such consideration; for A3/A4 the Board’s assessment raised reasonably arguable errors in law, inadequate child‑specific consideration and potential irrationality; accordingly time was extended and leave to apply for judicial review granted.
20 Sept 2022

NOVI AZIZAH AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1417
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV289/2021

The Court held the Board failed to properly and separately consider the minors' personal circumstances, including the risk of statelessness arising from being born outside Indonesia, and the Judge erred in refusing extension of time by assuming Indonesian nationality without evidence; therefore the minors' proposed judicial review applications were reasonably arguable and leave was granted.
10 Sept 2021

NANI NURNANI AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2732
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1443/2018

Leave was refused because the Applicants failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and the Board's decisions; the Board's findings that threats were speculative and that state protection and internal relocation within Indonesia were available were rational and supported by evidence and COI, and judicial review is not a forum to re-evaluate those assessments.
26 May 2021

LUSY MERI MARIA BERTOLES AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1456
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1445/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because applicants failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board and Director adequately and properly assessed credibility, risk, availability of internal relocation and the minors' circumstances; A1's refusal to answer questions undermined her case and there is no prospect of success on judicial review.
14 Apr 2021

AKHTAR MUSAMMAT SAJNA AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 912
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1426/2018

Leave granted because the Board failed to give separate consideration to the child's non‑refoulement claim and failed to take into account child‑specific factors (including the impact on the mother's ability to relocate), such failures made it reasonably arguable that the Board's decision was legally flawed; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was granted and the substantive hearing was ordered to proceed under Order 80 r 2 with appropriate next friend/legal representation for the child.