Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interpretation/translation

Legal area

Court

3 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1067
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL159/2022

The Board had fully considered the applicant’s evidence and grounds, applied appropriate legal principles in disposing of the appeal on paper, and made no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the applicant’s challenge was not reasonably arguable with a realistic prospect of success, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed.
4 Oct 2024

GILL SUMIT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2024] HKCA 901
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV212/2024

Leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused because the applicant's grounds were not reasonably arguable: the complaints were vague or factually incorrect, did not demonstrate legal error or procedural unfairness, and credibility‑based dismissal by the Board is not reviewable absent error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
27 May 2022

ZAFAR IQBAL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2022] HKCA 724
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV327/2021

The judge correctly applied the governing authorities, found no prejudice from lack of legal or language assistance, accepted the COI as credible, and concluded the Board’s decision was not irrational or Wednesbury-unreasonable; therefore there was no realistic prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused.
30 Nov 2021

RE MARMA PAICHING

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1766
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV356/2021

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the refusal of leave because there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board was entitled to make adverse credibility findings after a re-hearing; lack of continuous legal representation or language assistance did not demonstrably prejudice the applicant; the new documents did not produce an arguable ground for review as they related only to internal relocation which did not arise given the Board's credibility findings.
19 Oct 2021

RE KAWALJIT SINGH

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2972
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL297/2021

Extension of time was refused because the applicant had no realistic prospect of success on the intended judicial review given the Board's unchallenged credibility findings and conclusions that there were no substantial grounds for believing he faced torture or persecution; the applicant's reasons for delay and request for translation did not alter that assessment.
2 May 2019

RE BEPARI MANIK

Citation

[2019] HKCA 469
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV609/2018

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law error: his grounds were general and lacked particulars, the Board's adverse credibility findings following oral evidence were within its province and entitled to deference, internal relocation was available, and complaints about interpretation were not raised below; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was rightly refused.
8 Feb 2018

SAID UMAIR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCA 82
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP44/2017

Extension of time was refused because the applicant failed to provide an adequate explanation for the delay and, on the merits, had no real prospect of success—the judge's refusal of leave to apply for judicial review was not shown to be erroneous, there was no procedural unfairness, and the Board and Director's decisions met the requisite standard of fairness and were not Wednesbury unreasonable.
27 Jun 2008

HKSAR v. BONG HOI THONG

Citation

HKSAR v. BONG HOI THONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA397/2008

The appeal was dismissed because the magistrate's finding that the appellant was the initial aggressor was one clearly open on the evidence and there was no proper basis for the High Court to overturn the magistrate's credibility findings.
3 Dec 2001

RE CHENG KAI NAM, GARY

Citation

RE CHENG KAI NAM, GARY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL3568/2001

No arguable constitutional right exists requiring a trial judge to speak the specific official language chosen by an accused; Article 9 and the Official Languages Ordinance permit use of interpreters and vest language choice in the trial judge under s.5; the listing judge acted rationally within his preparatory discretion and did not act Wednesbury unreasonably, therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
7 Apr 1970

CHAN NAN FONG v. CHAN TAK WAH

Citation

CHAN NAN FONG v. CHAN TAK WAH
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP3/1969

The appeal was allowed because the tribunal's short notes did not reflect critical matters: the tenant did not intentionally consent to the possession order, material defences (tender of a post-dated cheque and prior practice of accepting such cheques) were not heard or considered, and language/interpretation issues rendered the hearing unsatisfactory; accordingly the order was set aside and the matter remitted for a new hearing.