Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Determination on paper

Legal area

Court

1 Apr 2026

TATANG SARUDIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1667
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1153/2025

Refusal to extend time: the applicant's stated reasons (lack of procedural knowledge and limited English) did not justify the 2-day delay and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success because the Board reasonably rejected the applicant's unsubstantiated evidence; accordingly extension of time refused and the application dismissed.
5 Nov 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5240
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2382/2023

The withdrawal application was refused and the leave application dismissed for want of prosecution because the applicant failed to file the required affirmation or statement as directed, showed no intention to prosecute, and the Court, having examined the Board's Decision with anxious scrutiny, found no apparent error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness that would justify granting leave.
2 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3914
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1067/2021

The withdrawal application was refused and the leave application dismissed for want of prosecution because the applicant failed to comply with directions to confirm the withdrawal was voluntary and that it was safe to return; further, on anxious scrutiny the Board's Decision disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness.
30 May 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2256
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1176/2021

The Applicant failed to comply with the Court's directions to file an affirmation or statement confirming voluntary withdrawal and safety to return, demonstrating lack of intention to prosecute; upon anxious scrutiny the Court found no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness in the Board's decision and therefore refused the withdrawal and dismissed the leave application for want of prosecution.
16 Jan 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 317
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1350/2020

Applicant's withdrawal application was refused and the leave application dismissed for want of prosecution because the Applicant failed to comply with clear directions to file a confirming affirmation or statement, evinced no intention to prosecute, and on anxious scrutiny the Board's Decision showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness.
20 Sept 2023

MOHOMED RAHOOF MOHOMED SAJAHAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1079
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP306/2022

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b), failed to show prospect of success for an extension of time, and the newly produced death certificates were inadmissible under the Ladd v Marshall criteria; the Court of Appeal did not err in determining the application on paper.
19 May 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1363
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1481/2021

The leave application was dismissed for want of prosecution because the applicant failed to comply with the courts directions and failed to confirm that his withdrawal was voluntary and made with understanding of its consequences, which evidenced a lack of intention to prosecute the judicial review.
30 Sept 2022

RE KANG SOHAN SINGH

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1466
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV585/2021

The Court dismissed the notice of motion and refused leave to appeal because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) HKCFAO and no other basis justified granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.
29 Apr 2022

SILLAH HAJI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2022] HKCA 555
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP123/2021

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the Court of Appeal was wrong, failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b), and offered no basis under the 'or otherwise' limb; procedural non-compliance justified determination on paper and dismissal of the Notice of Motion.
9 Nov 2021

RE SHRESTHA PRADIP

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1647
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV187/2021

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance as required by s22(1)(b), the arguments had been considered and rejected in the earlier judgment, and no basis existed under the "otherwise" limb of s22(1)(b).