Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mootness/otiose remedy

Legal area

Court

20 May 2026

ECI MERI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2898
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL67/2024

The court refused the applicant's attempt to withdraw the leave application leaving the action at large, amended the named putative parties to correctly record the Torture Claims Appeal Board as respondent and the Director of Immigration as interested party, and dismissed the leave application because the applicant's circumstances had changed such that granting relief would be otiose.
13 May 2026

HUSSAIN MAJID v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2732
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1595/2021

The court refused the applicant's attempt to leave the action at large and dismissed the Leave Application because the applicant confirmed the factual basis for his non-refoulement claim had been resolved, making any grant of leave or remedial order otiose and serving no practical purpose even if legal errors existed in the Board's decision.
16 Feb 2026

TATY DESI YANAH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 891
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1716/2023

The applicant validly sought withdrawal and confirmed she no longer required non-refoulement protection and had been removed; consequently the underlying claim is moot and any remedy would be otiose, so the court refused the withdrawal application and dismissed the leave application.
16 Feb 2026

CHU THI HOA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 889
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1261/2023

The application to withdraw was refused because withdrawal cannot leave the action at large; the leave application was dismissed on the ground that the applicant confirmed it was safe to return so the non-refoulement claim is otiose and granting leave would serve no practical purpose; the court amended the putative respondent to Torture Claims Appeal Board and added Director of Immigration as putative interested party.
14 Jan 2026

LE THI XA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 249
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2202/2023

The application to withdraw the leave application was refused and the leave application was dismissed because the applicant confirmed it was safe to return to Vietnam, rendering the non-refoulement claim otiose; accordingly there was no practical purpose in granting leave even if legal errors existed. The court also amended the party names to correctly identify the Torture Claims Appeal Board as putative respondent and the Director of Immigration as putative interested party.
7 Jan 2026

BUI THI VAN YEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 190
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL255/2024

The court refused the applicant's request to withdraw and dismissed the leave application because the applicant no longer required non-refoulement protection, rendering any remedy otiose; the court also corrected the party names by naming Torture Claims Appeal Board as putative respondent and adding Director of Immigration as putative interested party.
9 Dec 2025

LAELA FITRIYANINGSIH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6158
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1555/2024

The applicant's confirmed voluntary withdrawal and clear statement that it is safe to return to Indonesia rendered the non-refoulement claim moot; therefore granting leave or remitting the case would serve no practical purpose and the Leave Application is to be dismissed while the application to withdraw is refused insofar as leaving the action at large would result.
19 Nov 2025

LESTARI, WINDA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5673
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1728/2023

Because the applicant voluntarily withdrew and confirmed it was safe to return (and was removed), the non-refoulement claim became otiose; consequently the court refused the withdrawal application and dismissed the leave application as granting relief would serve no practical purpose.
19 Nov 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3104
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1364/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant had left Hong Kong and section 37ZF deems the claim withdrawn, so there was no practical purpose in granting relief and the application was properly refused for case management reasons.
21 Jun 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1611
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL564/2019

Because the applicant expressly affirmed he wished to close his case and return home, the court concluded that any judicial review remedy would be otiose and therefore dismissed the application for leave to apply for judicial review relying on the authority that relief may be refused where it would serve no practical purpose.