Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Irrationality/wednesbury

Legal area

Court

19 Nov 2025

KHAN MOHIB ALI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCA 995
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV215/2025

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judge's refusal of leave because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's credibility findings and risk assessments were within its exclusive fact-finding province and satisfied the Wednesbury standard; the newly produced documents did not establish the alleged falsity of the murder charge or provide a realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
13 May 2024

RE RAVINDER SINGH

Citation

[2024] HKCA 436
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP231/2022

The application for 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) HKCFAO and the grounds advanced did not constitute viable bases for granting leave; there was also no basis under the alternative 'or otherwise' limb of s22(1)(b).
1 Feb 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCA 123
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV259/2022

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s 22(1)(b) Cap 484, failed to specify any error of law, and provided only generic, unparticularised submissions insufficient to justify granting leave.
3 Mar 2022

RE DALOPE RICHARD CRISTOBAL

Citation

[2022] HKCA 317
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP143/2021

The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is dismissed because the intended appeal has no reasonable prospect of success and does not raise any question of great general or public importance as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance; the applicant's general assertions of procedural unfairness and misapplication of law were insufficient to satisfy the statutory test.
27 May 2021

TUNG CHUN CO LTD v. TOWN PLANNING BOARD

Citation

[2021] HKCA 758
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV50/2019

Applicant failed to establish substantive or procedural legitimate expectations because there was no clear unambiguous representation; TPB’s planning judgments (including selection of vantage points and exclusion of comparator buildings) were within its broad discretion and not irrational; imposition of 120mPD BHR was not manifestly without reasonable foundation and did not breach Basic Law property rights; therefore applicant’s appeal was dismissed and lower court relief (quashing the Rejection and remitting the Representation for reconsideration) and costs rulings were not disturbed.
20 Nov 2019

RE KHAN ZAINUL ABEDIN

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1250
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP33/2019

The applicant's grounds were broad, vague and lacking particulars; the Judge had properly and rigorously reviewed the Board's and Director's decisions and no error of law or procedural unfairness was identified; there was no arguable point nor a question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) Cap.484, therefore leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is refused.
5 May 2015

CHAN KAM CHOI v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHAN KAM CHOI v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV211/2013

The Court found grounds 2 and 3 (improper reliance on precedents and irrationality/disproportionality of dismissal without retirement benefits) to be reasonably arguable and therefore granted leave to apply for judicial review on those grounds; ground 1 (failure to seek proper representations) was not reasonably arguable in light of clear correspondence showing the applicant was given opportunity to make final representations.
7 Mar 2013

LONGEST PROFIT (HONG KONG) LTD v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)

Citation

LONGEST PROFIT (HONG KONG) LTD v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL14/2012

The Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal at the preliminary hearing was lawful because it reasonably concluded on the evidence before it that the Structure was most likely a new building and that the works were not exempt under s41(3); the Tribunal acted within its discretion in refusing to hear live witness evidence; even if the finding that the Structure was new were wrong, the alternative finding that the works were unauthorized sufficed to dismiss the appeal; the applicant's non-disclosure at the leave stage further undermined the judicial review.
14 Feb 2007

TATIANA CHINKO v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

TATIANA CHINKO v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1634/2006

Extension of time was refused and the appeal dismissed because the applicant unduly delayed, offered inexcusable reasons, and the appeal had no real prospect of success given that the sponsor had withdrawn or was financially incapable, so the Director's refusal was sustained.