Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judicial review of administrative decision

Legal area

Court

3 Mar 2026

NALUGO PENNY acting as guardian for JALLOW ALHAGIE OUSMAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1268
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1855/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success; the grounds were unparticularised bare assertions unsupported by evidence and the Board's factual determinations and conclusions on state protection and internal relocation were within its remit and not vitiated by legal error or procedural unfairness; non-compliance with Order 80 r2 was treated as a mere irregularity.
19 Aug 2025

ANOSIKE NNAMDI ANTHONY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3499
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1212/2025

The Court granted leave because the Applicant established a reasonably arguable case that the Board irrationally failed to accept evidence of personal targeting and failed to make adequate inquiry into relevant COI and state protection; given the seriousness of non‑refoulement issues an enhanced scrutiny was required and the Board's reasons gave rise to arguable errors of law or irrationality justifying judicial review.
7 Jan 2025

LASMINI YAYUK LESTARI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 102
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL223/2020

Because the applicant was reported deceased and the cause of action had therefore terminated, the court exercised its discretion not to grant relief that would be otiose and dismissed the application for leave to apply for judicial review, applying the principle of abatement on death and authorities on refusing pointless remedies.
6 Jan 2025

王寬裕對高等法院聆案官何展鵬先生 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3708
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2155/2024

Permission was refused because the applicant’s challenge was not reasonably arguable and had no realistic prospects of success; the Director’s refusal and the Master’s dismissal are primarily matters for statutory appeal, and there was no adequate basis to show illegality, Wednesbury unreasonableness or procedural unfairness warranting judicial review.
6 Jan 2025

王寬裕對高等法院聆案官鄺寶昌先生 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3701
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1916/2024

Leave was refused because the applicant\'s challenge was not reasonably arguable and had no realistic prospect of success; judicial review is not a vehicle to re‑try a statutory appeal and will only proceed where the decision lacks legal basis, is Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally unfair, none of which were established.
29 Aug 2024

鄭惠芬對法律援助署（法援署）署長

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2033
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL643/2024

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the impugned decision was a routine procedural case‑management decision about handling related legal aid appeals by the same hearing officer, there were no special circumstances showing substantial or irreparable harm, the appeals had been heard making the challenge moot, and alleged unfairness or unreasonableness could be addressed at the hearing rather than by permission stage judicial review.
21 May 2024

GHARTI CHETTRI AMITA KUMARI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1351
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1270/2019

Leave was refused because the applicant’s asserted grounds were vague, lacking necessary particulars and not reasonably arguable, the Board’s adverse credibility finding and conclusions about internal relocation were supported by the evidence and not shown to contain legal error or procedural unfairness, and judicial review is not a forum to re-evaluate primary factual assessments.
21 Nov 2023

LY TU LONG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2906
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1842/2023

The applicant voluntarily withdrew his application for leave and there was nothing outstanding in the action; applying Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi the correct disposition was to dismiss the leave application rather than leave the action at large.
3 May 2023

JAGWANT KAUR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1103
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL608/2019

Leave was refused because the applicant's asserted grounds were general, vague and unsupported by particulars; the Board's adverse credibility findings after oral hearings were supported by detailed reasoning and no legal error or procedural unfairness was shown; the Director and Board reasonably found internal relocation in India available, so there was no arguable prospect of success on judicial review.
26 Oct 2021

陳寶美對廖偉康 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3132
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1299/2021

The application for permission failed because the applicant named the wrong respondent, sought remedies that were merits-based and non-justiciable, and did not advance any arguable public law errors (legal error, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness); credibility and mitigation are matters for the disciplinary body or the statutory appeal, not for judicial review, therefore permission is refused.