Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judicial review standard

Legal area

Court

14 May 2026

SRI-LESTARI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2716
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL936/2023

Leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director’s and Board’s decisions; the Board’s credibility findings and assessment that risk was low and internal relocation was reasonable were supported by the evidence, and the applicant confirmed she no longer opposed return to Indonesia, demonstrating no prospect of success.
12 May 2026

NJIE SAMUEL JOHN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCA 956
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV173/2026

The Board lawfully exercised its discretion under s37ZT by finding the applicant's reasons for delay unsatisfactory and by considering the merits; there was no demonstrable public law error in the Board's or the judge's decisions and therefore the refusal of extension of time and leave for judicial review was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
30 Apr 2026

HANUMAN RAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2216
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1457/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board's credibility and evidential findings were within its fact-finding remit, there was no evidence of a real risk from the alleged creditor, and state protection and internal relocation were available; no legal error or procedural unfairness was shown that would justify judicial intervention.
8 Apr 2026

RE SHAHUL HAMEED BEER MOHAMED AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCA 632
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV77/2024

The appeal is dismissed: while it was arguable that the Board failed to properly address a mixed‑race child discrimination risk in relation to return to Jakarta, there was no arguable basis to challenge the Board's finding that the family could be safely returned to Mumbai or New Delhi; the Judge correctly refused leave because there was no realistic prospect of success in relation to the India return and no adequate material to show procedural unfairness vitiated the Board's decisions; the parents' appeal depends on the daughters' appeal and therefore fails.
30 Mar 2026

ASGHAR GHULAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1823
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL264/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board reasonably found low localized risk, inconsistencies in the applicant's evidence, and that state protection or internal relocation were available, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.
6 Mar 2026

DHARAMBIR SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1336
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL625/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings were supported by the evidence and applicable law; and even if risk were present reasonable internal relocation and state protection were available.
6 Mar 2026

NUR AFIFAH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1215
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1006/2023

The Board and Director reasonably found the applicant faced only localized low-intensity threats from private actors, that state protection and reasonable internal relocation in Indonesia were available, and no legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness was demonstrated; therefore there was no reasonably arguable ground for judicial review and leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed.
27 Feb 2026

JOMPILLA ETHEL GONZALES v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCA 243
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV736/2025

The appeal is dismissed because the Applicant failed to identify any error in the Judge's refusal to grant leave; general allegations without particulars do not constitute viable grounds for judicial review, and the Court will not intervene absent an error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision.
12 Feb 2026

RAJAN KUMAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 931
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL754/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings were supportable on the evidence, and even if some risk existed it was localized and internal relocation in India was a reasonable alternative, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.
4 Feb 2026

DO MINH VUONG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 698
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1279/2025

The extension of time was refused and the leave application dismissed because the applicant filed more than four months late without good reason, failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success given the Board's adverse credibility findings and positive findings on state protection and internal relocation, and relied on bare assertions unsupported by evidence.