Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Credibility and fact‑finding

Legal area

Court

15 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2600
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1531/2023

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant disavowed the grounds relied on in her Form 86, the Board's determination was grounded in factual findings which did not exhibit error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the intended challenge lacked realistic prospects of success.
29 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2358
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL260/2026

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success; the Board's findings on credibility, absence of evidence of a real risk, viability of internal relocation and availability of state protection were within the Board's fact-finding discretion and there was no shown error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
29 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2189
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1618/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to raise any valid ground, failed to show a realistic prospect of success, and the Board's findings that the claim was unsubstantiated, that state protection and internal relocation were available, and that there was no real risk of serious or fatal harm were not shown to be infected by error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the court's role is supervisory and it will not re‑evaluate primary fact finding.
13 Mar 2026

PHAM THI DANG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1284
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1454/2021

The court refused to extend time and dismissed the leave application because the application was filed more than three months after the Board's decision and the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success or any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; factual findings that state protection was available were within the Board's province and not susceptible to judicial review.
3 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1105
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1681/2020

Leave refused because applicants failed to show any realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings were rationally open on the evidence, the Board separately and properly assessed the child's claim as free of real risk, and there was no basis for judicial interference; procedural non‑compliance was a mere irregularity not a nullity.
3 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1000
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1319/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because the applicant raised no arguable ground: the Board's findings that state protection was available, that alleged harms were speculative, and that internal relocation was viable were not shown to be legally irrational or procedurally unfair, so the applicant has no realistic prospect of success.
30 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 497
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1757/2021

The leave application is refused because the applicant failed to plead any arguable public law errors in the Board's factual and credibility findings, the Form 86 did not identify grounds or make full disclosure, the withdrawal of the appeal was properly accepted and final, and the applications were substantially delayed with no explanation so no extension of time should be granted.
23 Jan 2026

TRINH TIEN DUNG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 440
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL72/2021

The applicant has no realistic prospect of success because the Board’s adverse credibility findings were supported by the evidence (claims were bare assertions and improbable), no error of law or procedural unfairness was demonstrated, and therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
14 Jan 2026

MURYATIKA WULAN LINDA ARIE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 178
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1258/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable or realistic prospect of success: the Board's factual findings that the creditor's threat was an empty threat, that state protection existed and that internal relocation was viable were not vitiated by legal error or procedural unfairness, and the applicant's request to re‑speak to the adjudicator was irrelevant and beyond the court's power.
14 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 187
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1139/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness that would give him a realistic prospect of success: the Board's credibility and fact findings were within its proper province, the Hindi interpreter was sufficient, the applicant had not procured supporting evidence despite time to do so and had not raised the procedural complaint before the Board, and internal relocation was found viable.