Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Deemed withdrawal of claim

Legal area

Court

10 Apr 2026

OGAL BELINDA ADHIAMBO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1874
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL873/2021

The leave application is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify arguable public law errors in the Board's decision, the Board correctly applied the law and reached fact findings within its remit, the applicant offered no adequate explanation for a five-month delay so extension of time is refused, and the Form 86 was deficient for failure to plead grounds and make full disclosure.
25 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1645
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1432/2023

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant had been removed from Hong Kong and s37ZF deems the torture/non-refoulement claim withdrawn on departure, so granting relief would serve no practical purpose and the application is therefore dismissed.
8 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4122
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL108/2011

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant had been removed from Hong Kong and, under section 37ZF, his torture/non-refoulement claim is treated as withdrawn on departure, so any judicial review would serve no practical purpose.
19 Nov 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3133
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1270/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant had been removed from Hong Kong and section 37ZF deems the torture/non-refoulement claim withdrawn, leaving no live controversy or practical relief to grant.
25 Apr 2024

RE HUSSAIN RIZWAN

Citation

[2024] HKCA 344
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP275/2023

Extension of time refused because the applicant's delay of over two years was extremely substantial and inordinate, he gave no good reason for the delay, he raised new grounds and fresh evidence for the first time on appeal which were inadmissible, and there was no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness in the decisions of the Director or the Board so there was no prospect of success.
30 Dec 2022

RE AMARJIT SINGH

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1866
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP169/2022

The Court refused the renewal for extension of time because the applicant was substantially out of time with no reasonable explanation, failed to provide any evidence to reopen his non-refoulement claim under s37ZG, and identified no arguable error in the Judge's refusal of leave; consequently the intended appeal was hopeless and extension was refused.
6 Sept 2022

MAGNO MERRY KHRIS FONSECA AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2704
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL480/2019

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness in the Board's decision and thus had no realistic prospect of success for judicial review.
20 Sept 2019

SIDHU BALBIR SINGH v. THE ADJUDICATOR OF THE NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 815
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL601/2018

The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant was more than five months late without explanation, there were no reasonably arguable grounds or prospects of success identified against the Director or the Board, and the Director and the Board applied the statutory provisions lawfully and fairly; accordingly there was no good reason to extend time.
20 Dec 2018

RE MUSAFAQOH

Citation

[2018] HKCA 962
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV335/2018

Because the applicant failed to return the completed torture/non-refoulement claim form within the statutory period and did not provide sufficient evidence that circumstances beyond her control prevented compliance, the Director and the Board were entitled to treat the claim as withdrawn and to refuse to reopen it; their decisions were not Wednesbury unreasonable, involved no error of law and were procedurally fair, hence leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused.
16 Jul 2018

MUSAFAQOH v. YU CHEUK-MAN, ESQ. [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1562
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL126/2018

The application for leave was refused because the applicant failed to return the completed claim form by the extended deadline, the withdrawal notice was served in person, and the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to show circumstances beyond her control to justify reopening. The Director and Adjudicator lawfully and reasonably refused to reopen the claim; there was no procedural unfairness and no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.