Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Findings of fact

Legal area

Court

7 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2286
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1149/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant advanced no reasonably arguable public law grounds, failed to comply with Form 86 requirements, did not establish any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's detailed factual findings, and was out of time with no satisfactory explanation.
13 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1384
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL870/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to plead grounds or disclose material facts in Form 86, declined to give oral evidence so the Board lawfully assessed the claim on paper, and the Board's factual findings and legal application disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the proposed challenge was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.
4 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1080
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL878/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable grounds in Form 86 or supporting affidavit, clarified he had no complaint against the Board, and did not demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision such that judicial review would have realistic prospects of success.
20 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 655
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2494/2020

The applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB's 2nd decision; the TCAB's factual conclusions were open to it on the evidence and applied the correct legal principles for BOR2 claims; accordingly the application for leave to apply for judicial review is not reasonably arguable and is dismissed.
3 Feb 2026

SHANTA ALIMA AKTER AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 500
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL154/2023

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicants failed to plead arguable grounds in Form 86 and to make full and frank disclosure, and the Board's factual findings that there was no real risk and that state protection/internal relocation were available did not disclose any public law error, procedural unfairness or irrationality to justify judicial intervention.
30 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 498
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL732/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground and the Board's decision showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the applicant also sought withdrawal and affirmed it is safe to return, removing any live controversy.
30 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 501
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL781/2023

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law errors in the Board's decision, the Board applied the law correctly and reached fact findings open to it, the Form 86 lacked pleaded grounds and particulars, and the challenge was not reasonably arguable; the applicant also sought to withdraw the application.
12 Jan 2026

DISANAYAKA MUDIYANSELAGE WIJERATHNA BANDARA alias DISSAMAYAKE MUDIYANSELAGE WIJIERATNE BANDA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 76
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2208/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board conducted a detailed and fair analysis, its factual findings (including acceptance of naval service and rejection of claimed threats) did not involve any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the applicant failed to plead any reasonably arguable grounds with realistic prospects of success in the Form 86 and supporting materials.
30 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6362
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL5/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to plead any arguable grounds in Form 86, made only bare assertions unsupported by evidence, and did not demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's factual findings that rendered the Board's decision susceptible to judicial review.
28 Nov 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5692
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL819/2023

The Leave Application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law errors in the Board's factual findings, did not provide clear grounds or full and frank disclosure in Form 86, and the intended challenge was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success; accordingly there was no basis to grant leave.