Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Irrationality/unreasonableness review

Legal area

Court

22 Dec 2025

AZIZ SHAFQAT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1057
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV152/2025

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, failed to show any error in the CA Judgment, raised no viable ground of appeal and the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success, and there was no basis to grant leave under the "otherwise" limb of s22(1)(b) Cap 484.
9 Mar 2023

RE MD JOHIRUL ISLAM

Citation

[2023] HKCA 295
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP141/2020

The applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance or any specific error in the Court of Appeal's judgment; his submissions were bare, vague, fact-specific and a re‑run of arguments already rejected, therefore they did not satisfy s22(1)(b) HKCFAO and leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused.
23 Jun 2022

RE MOHAMMED SHAMIUL HAQUE

Citation

[2022] HKCA 865
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP185/2019

The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance required by s22(1)(b) Cap 484, failed to provide particulars or explain how the principle of irrationality was misapplied, and the matters raised were not reasonably arguable nor did they qualify under the "otherwise" limb.
25 Jan 2005

LUK SIU FAI v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE on behalf of COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

LUK SIU FAI v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE on behalf of COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL37/2004

The AO's findings were rational and based on cogent, contemporaneous evidence (three officers' records and immigration records); identified discrepancies were minor and did not destroy reliability; absence of a formal caution did not vitiate admissibility in disciplinary proceedings; the AO's language indicated a high standard of proof equivalent to beyond reasonable doubt; the conduct was disciplinable as a continuing event into Hong Kong; dismissal was a lawful and proportionate disciplinary response — accordingly the judicial review is dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

AZIZ SHAFQAT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

RE MD JOHIRUL ISLAM

RE MOHAMMED SHAMIUL HAQUE

LUK SIU FAI v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE on behalf of COMMISSIONER OF POLICE