Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Language assistance/interpretation

Legal area

Court

9 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1115
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL672/2021

The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant's grounds were vague, generic or factual matters already considered by the TCAB; the TCAB applied the correct legal tests, made findings that the applicant's evidence was incoherent and that internal relocation was available, and therefore there was no reasonably arguable case or realistic prospect of success to justify leave.
15 Dec 2021

RE MEHMOOD MUFTI

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1879
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV194/2021

The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because the applicant’s grounds of appeal concerning lack of language and legal assistance had already been considered and found without merit by this Court, the intended appeal did not raise any question of great general or public importance under s.22(1)(b) HKCFAO, and no basis existed under the alternative limb; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and the motion dismissed.
10 Aug 2021

RE MD IMRAN

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1117
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP33/2020

The Court refused leave to appeal because the applicant's grounds were unarguable and bound to fail, none raised an arguable point or question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap.484, and the asserted lack of language assistance did not amount to procedural unfairness sufficient to merit leave.
2 Aug 2019

MD IMRAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD /NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1905
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL988/2018

The application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of the Board's 24 November 2014 decision was dismissed for inordinate and unjustified delay because the applicant failed to show good reason to extend time; the application for leave in respect of the Board's 31 May 2018 decision was refused because the complaints were not reasonably arguable, there was no procedural unfairness and the Adjudicator's decisions were not Wednesbury unreasonable.
27 Sept 2018

RE TAMANG BHIM BAHADUR

Citation

[2018] HKCA 616
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV148/2018

The Court held there was no error of law or procedural unfairness: the applicant had prior legal assistance, had interpreter assistance at the Board hearing and could give evidence, the Director sufficiently explained the BOR2 decision, the Director's absence at the Board was not prejudicial, and the intended judicial review was not reasonably arguable and had no prospect of success; accordingly leave was refused and the appeal dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

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

RE MEHMOOD MUFTI

RE MD IMRAN

MD IMRAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD /NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

RE TAMANG BHIM BAHADUR