Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Credibility and evidence assessment

Legal area

Court

4 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5516
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1419/2020

The application for leave was dismissed because the Form 86 failed to identify any particularised grounds of review and the Affirmation contained only generic, unparticularised complaints; the TCAB/NRCPO's adverse credibility findings and conclusions on risk were within its primary fact‑finding province, supported by reasons (including finding of fabricated documentary evidence), and disclosed no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality sufficient to found a reasonably arguable ground with a realistic prospect of success.
31 Jul 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3311
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1154/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant advanced only a factual challenge to the Board's findings without any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the Board applied correct legal principles, fairly assessed evidence and COI, and its decision met the enhanced Wednesbury standard so the judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.
9 Jun 2025

TSE KWOK WAH v. CHEUNG LAP SANG trading as HOP LEE COMPANY AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 716
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1066/2020

The court preferred the Applicant's consistent and corroborated evidence over R1's contradictory and partly fabricated testimony, found on the balance of probabilities that R1 exercised control, arranged attendance, handled and delivered wages and supervised work and therefore was the Applicant's employer; allowed the LOEC appeal and fixed LOEC at 10%; calculated statutory compensation on monthly earnings of HK$17,500 and awarded s.9, s.10 and s.10A sums totaling HK$293,765 with interest and costs nisi against R1 and R2.
30 Apr 2024

ARELLANO ARIEL GONZAGA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1077
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1361/2019

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions on lack of imminent/substantial risk, availability of state protection and internal relocation were lawful, within its fact‑finding province and did not disclose errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial review.
12 Mar 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 647
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL992/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's grounds were bare allegations unsupported by reliable evidence, the Board's adverse findings were within its fact-finding province and did not disclose errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the applicant therefore lacked a realistic prospect of success.
18 Jan 2023

AMRITPAL DASS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 12
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL192/2020

Leave was dismissed because the Applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions, which had reasonably found the risks were localized family disputes, state protection and internal relocation in India were available, and therefore there was no prospect of success on a judicial review challenging those factual assessments.
18 Oct 2022

SILVA TIKIRIYAWARNAGE GEORGE PRASANNA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2961
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL712/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show an arguable case of legal error or procedural unfairness: the Board\'s adverse credibility findings and conclusions that state protection and internal relocation were available were rational and not Wednesbury unreasonable, so the applicant had no realistic prospect of success.
5 Oct 2022

集成顧問有限公司對 SZE KAU YEUNG及另一人

Citation

[2022] HKDC 1087
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6975/2019

Because the prescribed estate agency agreement (Form 3) was not properly executed in accordance with the statutory regime (it was signed only by one seller and executed after the provisional sale agreement in breach of Reg 6(1)), the plaintiff did not have the statutory right to sue under s45 Cap. 511 and the claim based on Form 3 fails.
5 Aug 2022

BILAL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2432
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL113/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director’s or the Board’s decisions; the decisions lawfully relied on credibility findings, objective country information and the availability of police protection and internal relocation such that there were no substantial grounds for believing the Applicant faced torture or other serious harm on return to India.
18 Aug 2021

MD IBRAHIM SHEIKH alias MD IBRAHIM SHAKH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2380
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL701/2021

The Director's decision was not shown to contain error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and the applicant failed to show a significant change of circumstances under s37ZO giving his subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; because the applicant persistently sought to re-litigate the same matters without viable legal basis, a Restricted Proceedings Order was proportionate and justified.