Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judicial review limits

Legal area

Court

6 Feb 2026

RICHARD SWAN v. THE MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT OF PAMELA YOUDE NETHERSOLE EASTERN HOSPITAL

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 853
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL118/2026

The application was dismissed because the detention and the refusal to discharge were authorised by the Mental Health Ordinance (s.36 and s.42(1)) and the Conditional Discharge Order made under s.42B was lawful and proportionate under Article 28 Basic Law and the Bill of Rights; the court will not reassess the merits of the medical superintendent's clinical judgment and statutory review lies with the Mental Health Review Tribunal under s.59B.
10 Oct 2023

RAI SARASWATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2593
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL518/2023

The Board and the Director conducted lawful and fair proceedings; the adverse credibility findings were supported by the evidence and detailed reasoning; absence of legal representation at the Board hearing and non-provision of a translation did not cause prejudice; reasonable internal relocation within India was available; no error of law or procedural unfairness was established and therefore there is no reasonably arguable ground for judicial review, so leave is refused.
5 Sept 2023

DANG VAN DE AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2231
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1089/2021

Extension refused because delay was substantial and intentionally unexplained, the asserted ground amounted to re-arguing factual credibility findings which are not arguable on judicial review, and granting extension would constitute abuse of process and cause prejudice to public administration and the non-refoulement system.
22 Jun 2021

TONG YING KIT v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2021] HKCA 912
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV293/2021

On proper construction NSL 46(1) vests a mandatory prosecutorial decision in the Secretary for Justice to direct trial without a jury; that decision is a prosecutorial decision protected by Basic Law 63 and not amenable to conventional judicial review except on the limited grounds of dishonesty, bad faith or other exceptional circumstances; accordingly the applicant's challenge was not reasonably arguable and leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused and the appeal dismissed.
28 Oct 2020

JAITEH MOMODOU L. v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2758
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL960/2017

Extension of time refused because the applicant failed to give an acceptable explanation for the delay, failed to attend the hearing despite being personally contacted, and the underlying application for judicial review had no real prospect of success; on balance it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension.
16 Jul 2019

ISLAM MOHAMMAD SHAHIDUL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1784
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1047/2017

The summons for extension of time was dismissed because the applicant failed to adequately explain the delay, the court concluded there were no arguable grounds or reasonable prospect of success in the intended appeal, service was proper and therefore it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension of time.
26 May 1999

TRAN THANG LAM AND OTHERS v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

TRAN THANG LAM AND OTHERS v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL80/1997

Leave to re-amend was granted only for those additions that replicate issues already decided or are further particulars of predisposition/bad faith; all proposed re-amendments alleging widespread procedural mishap, falsified records, Bogus reasons/ex post facto rationalisation or unlawful delegation were refused because (i) the contested matters were known or should have been known earlier and the application was piecemeal, (ii) the Director's decisions fundamentally rested on country condition evidence and independent Mainland verification rendering alleged minor inaccuracies immaterial to o…
18 Dec 1990

MOK SAI CHOW v. THE BUILDING AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER

Citation

MOK SAI CHOW v. THE BUILDING AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP768/1990

The court dismissed all applications for judicial review, holding that both the Building Authority and the Appeal Tribunal acted within their statutory discretion under the Buildings Ordinance, there was no established legitimate expectation or binding estoppel preventing re-issuance of demolition orders, and the conduct did not amount to such unfairness or illegality as to justify judicial intervention.