Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delay and limitation

Legal area

Court

13 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2380
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL407/2026

The application for extension of time was refused and leave dismissed because the applicant offered no adequate explanation for the substantial delay and had no realistic prospect of success given the Board's adverse credibility findings and its conclusions that state protection may be available and internal relocation is viable, and there was no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness to justify intervention.
11 May 2026

SHAFIQUE MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCA 701
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV712/2025

The appeal is dismissed because the application for leave was out of time without adequate excuse, the new complaints were not raised below and lacked merit, the applicant declined offered legal assistance, and no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was demonstrated such as to justify interfering with the Judge's refusal of leave.
13 Mar 2026

TARIQ MAHMMOD alias TARIQ MEHMOOD alias TARIQ MAHOOD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1507
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1394/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground of public law error, the application was significantly out of time with no good reason to extend, and the Director/TCAB/NRCPO decisions were not shown to contain legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality even under enhanced scrutiny.
5 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 752
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1375/2020

The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant filed out of time without good reason to extend the filing period and failed to establish any reasonably arguable public law grounds to challenge the TCAB decision; the TCAB's adverse credibility and evidence findings and conclusions on state protection and risk were not shown to be legally flawed, procedurally unfair or irrational under the enhanced Wednesbury standard.
4 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 598
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2321/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law errors in the Board's factual conclusions (which were lawfully reached), the Board applied the law correctly and fairly, and the application was substantially out of time without satisfactory explanation, so there were no realistic prospects of success.
23 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 423
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1736/2025

The application for leave was dismissed because the Board's decision involved findings of fact without identifiable public law error, the applicant failed to plead any arguable ground of judicial review, and the application was substantially out of time with no adequate explanation; accordingly leave was not reasonably arguable and no extension of time was granted.
5 Jan 2026

RE GUMIRAN MERLYN LOPEZ

Citation

[2026] HKCA 14
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV667/2025

The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to show good reason to extend time under Order 53 r4(1) and the proposed judicial review had no reasonable prospect of success; absent error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality the Court will not disturb the Board's factual and COI assessments.
24 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5507
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1345/2020

The application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed because the applicant filed more than three years after the TCAB Decision with no acceptable explanation for undue delay and, on anxious scrutiny applying an enhanced Wednesbury standard, there are no reasonably arguable grounds of public law error, procedural unfairness or irrationality that would give the application a realistic prospect of success.
4 Jun 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2374
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2640/2024

Leave refused because the application was filed out of time without satisfactory explanation, the proposed grounds were bare and not reasonably arguable, and the Board’s decision exhibited no legal error, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality such that judicial review could be justified.
8 Apr 2025

KIKI DYAH AYU WULANDARI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1421
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1663/2023

Leave was refused because the Form 86 was filed more than six months late without any explanation or application for extension and the proposed grounds were unparticularised and not reasonably arguable; the Board's findings that threats were pressure tactics, state protection and internal relocation were available, and that no torture/refugee/persecution claim was established were rational and free of legal error or procedural unfairness, so judicial review was not warranted.