Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judicial review of administrative decisions

Legal area

Court

29 Apr 2026

MAZUMDER MOHAMMAD JOYAL RANA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2303
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1572/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success on judicial review: the Board's decision adhered to public law standards, the applicant's procedural complaint was unfounded, the submitted document did not establish BNP membership, and the Board reasonably found state protection and internal relocation viable.
2 Apr 2026

SARBI JARTINI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1929
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2234/2023

The leave application was dismissed because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or the Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusion that internal relocation and state protection negated a real risk were reasonable and lawful, and judicial review cannot be used to rehear the merits.
17 Mar 2026

LIMBU SARMILA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCA 341
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV313/2025

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify or substantiate any viable ground of appeal showing error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the judge's refusal to grant leave; the absence of entitlement to free legal representation or an always-available interpreter meant no legal error arose from the alleged deficiencies.
4 Feb 2026

DUONG THUY LIEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 681
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1131/2022

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's findings that the risk from creditors was low, that state protection and reasonable internal relocation in Vietnam were available, and the applicant confirmed she no longer objected to return; therefore no prospect of success on judicial review.
10 Nov 2025

LEE TAK HUNG AND ANOTHER v. SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS AND OTHERS [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5464
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1196/2018

The application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicants failed to demonstrate arguable grounds or sufficient merit to meet the statutory/procedural threshold for leave under Order 53, and therefore leave must be refused.
2 Sept 2025

YATI ENDANG SEPINEP v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3772
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1817/2023

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board's factual findings that threats were not serious, state protection was available and internal relocation was reasonable were open to them and not for the court to re‑hear.
11 Jul 2025

黎秀琼對醫院管理局高拔陞醫生(行政總裁)及其他人 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2385
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1198/2025

Permission to apply for judicial review refused because the applicant failed to articulate any arguable grounds, relied on unsubstantiated serious allegations, many of the claimed remedies were non-justiciable or appropriate for other fora, and there was no basis to restrain the hospital or compel the respondents as sought; consequentially no relief granted and no order as to costs.
16 Jan 2025

YASEEN WAQAS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 196
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL399/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions on COI and internal relocation were sustainable and dispositive, rendering the intended judicial review claim not reasonably arguable.
6 Jan 2025

王寬裕對高等法院聆案官梁文亮先生 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3699
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1729/2024

Permission was refused because the subject decision falls within the framework of statutory appeal rights under the Legal Aid Ordinance and is not properly susceptible to collateral challenge by judicial review absent illegality, Wednesbury unreasonableness or procedural unfairness, and the applicant's grounds did not demonstrate reasonable arguability or realistic prospects of success.
19 Sept 2024

DONG THI SAU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2505
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL992/2022

The leave application was dismissed because the Director and the Board made rational, lawfully reasoned findings that the applicant's claim was either not credible or, if true, constituted a private monetary dispute with low risk and available state protection and reasonable internal relocation; no legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness was demonstrated and the applicant subsequently confirmed it was safe to return, so there is no reasonably arguable basis for judicial review.