Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Non-refoulement (convention against torture)

Legal area

Court

8 Apr 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1346
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1979/2020

The leave application was refused because it was filed 77 months after the Decision with no reasonable or credible explanation for the very substantial delay; the delay demonstrated lack of intent to prosecute and lack of merits and constituted an abuse of process; additionally, the Director's Notice was superseded by the Board's Decision and was not independently reviewable; accordingly extension of time and leave were refused.
29 Aug 2022

RE LAKHBIR

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2686
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL430/2019

Extension of time was refused because the applicant offered no adequate explanation for the delay, failed to demonstrate any arguable grounds or real prospect of success on appeal, and the underlying judicial review claim lacked merit; Form CALL-1 was properly served and the applicant had a duty to provide an address and to progress his case within the statutory period.
12 Jun 2019

MOHAMED SHABDEEN MOHAMED GAZARI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1532
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL961/2017

Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay, the court file showed proper service to the address provided, and the intended appeal lacked any reasonable prospect of success because no arguable grounds against the refusal of leave could be identified; accordingly it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension.
14 Dec 2018

TARJINDER SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2779
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL640/2017

Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay, the order was properly served, and the underlying judicial review application lacked merit; granting an extension was not in the interests of justice.
11 Jun 2012

ABID SAEED v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

ABID SAEED v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV177/2011

The Court held that the removal order issued under s.19(1)(b) was lawful and not time‑limited; s.32(4)(a) concerning 28‑day detention limits was inapplicable; failure to effect summary removal under s.18 within two months did not bar later removal under s.19; and the Director did not irrationally or unlawfully prevent the appellant from pursuing his civil claim nor commit abuse of power; therefore the appeal is dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

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

RE LAKHBIR

MOHAMED SHABDEEN MOHAMED GAZARI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

TARJINDER SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

ABID SAEED v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER