Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judicial review standards (wednesbury)

Legal area

Court

4 Feb 2026

AHMED MOHAMMAD SUJON v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 713
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2138/2020

The Director complied with section 37ZO and provided detailed reasons that there was no significant change of circumstances and no realistic prospect of success for a subsequent claim; the Director's factual findings were lawful, fair and not irrational; the applicant therefore failed to show a reasonably arguable case with realistic prospects and leave was refused; because the applicant had repeatedly re-litigated an unmeritorious claim after exhausting appeals, the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction and proportionality to impose a five-year Restricted Proceedings Order to prevent fur…
7 Feb 2025

BIJU MATHEW alias TOM THOMAS MATHEW alias ANTHONY SAVIEL alias JOHN GEORGE JOSEPH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 553
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL667/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant filed out of time by over five months without adequate explanation, failed to particularize any legal error or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision, and the Board's factual credibility findings and assessments of state protection and internal relocation (arrived at after a hearing) showed no arguable error such that extension of time or leave could be justified.
23 Jun 2023

DIDIK SUGIONO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1626
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1489/2022

Because the applicant was over nine months out of time without good reason, and his proposed grounds were unparticularised and not reasonably arguable on their merits, and because the Board and Director had not committed legal error or procedural unfairness (having reasonably found the risk was localized and internal relocation and state protection were available), the court refused to extend time and dismissed the leave application.
21 Jun 2022

MONDAL SUMITRA RANI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1683
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL927/2019

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to show a realistic prospect of success: the Board's findings on credibility, severity, lack of state involvement and availability of protection/internal relocation were adequately reasoned, not legally flawed, procedurally unfair or Wednesbury unreasonable, and the court will not substitute its own fact-finding for the Board's supervisory review.
19 Oct 2018

HUSSAIN MAHBOOB v. WESLEY WONG, TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2180
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL19/2018

Extension of time was refused because the applicant gave no satisfactory explanation for the delay (contradicted by record of release on recognizance and correspondence), and the intended judicial review had no real prospect of success: the Director and the Board applied correct legal principles, their findings that the risk was localized and internal relocation was reasonable were sustainable and there was no evidence of state acquiescence or procedural unfairness. Accordingly leave was dismissed.
17 Aug 2016

ASM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

ASM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL37/2015

The court dismissed the judicial review: TCAB's refusal to allow seven-day late filing on the basis that there was no reasonable excuse was within the range of reasonable decisions and not Wednesbury unreasonable; although it was procedurally unfair for TCAB to make material adverse findings on merits and credibility without an oral hearing, that unfairness did not entitle the applicant to relief because the primary lawful basis for refusal (no reasonable excuse to extend time) remained intact; accordingly the TCAB decision stands and relief is refused.
10 Nov 2011

GUTIERREZ JOSEPH JAMES, a minor v. COMMISSIONER OF REGISTRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

GUTIERREZ JOSEPH JAMES, a minor v. COMMISSIONER OF REGISTRATION AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL137/2010

The Court dismissed both judicial review applications: it held the Tribunal lawfully and reasonably found the mother failed the permanence requirement because she did not demonstrate objective concrete steps to make Hong Kong her sole permanent residence, and the child could not satisfy permanence independently and his periods of absence were not capable of being treated as continuous ordinary residence because permissions expired under s.11(10). The Tribunal's reasons were adequate and within the Director/Tribunal's primary remit and not irrational on the enhanced Wednesbury standard.

Hong Kong Case Law

AHMED MOHAMMAD SUJON v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

BIJU MATHEW alias TOM THOMAS MATHEW alias ANTHONY SAVIEL alias JOHN GEORGE JOSEPH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

DIDIK SUGIONO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

MONDAL SUMITRA RANI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

HUSSAIN MAHBOOB v. WESLEY WONG, TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

ASM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

GUTIERREZ JOSEPH JAMES, a minor v. COMMISSIONER OF REGISTRATION AND ANOTHER