Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Otiosity

Legal area

Court

3 Mar 2026

RIYANTI IDAH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1318
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1029/2023

The leave application is dismissed because the applicant confirmed the factual basis for her non-refoulement claim no longer exists, rendering any judicial review remedy otiose; the court granted withdrawal of the earlier ex-parte affirmation and summons, refused to treat the 30 January 2026 letter as authorising withdrawal in the manner sought, and dismissed the leave application.
9 Dec 2025

HOANG KHUONG DUY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6137
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1577/2022

The court refused the applicant's application to withdraw the leave application and dismissed the leave application on the ground that the applicant had confirmed it was safe to return to his country, rendering the intended judicial review otiose; accordingly, there was no practical purpose in granting leave even if there were arguable errors in the Board's decision.
11 Nov 2025

DOAN VAN THUAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5296
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2052/2024

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant's grounds were general and lacked requisite particulars, the Board had afforded a fair hearing and applied the correct legal tests in finding reasonable state protection, there were no errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality detectable upon anxious scrutiny, and the claim was rendered otiose by the applicant's own affirmation that it was safe to return; the application to withdraw was refused and the court proceeded to determine the merits rather than leave the action at large.
8 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2219
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL238/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the claimant had left Hong Kong such that the torture/non-refoulement claim was deemed withdrawn under s.37ZF of the Immigration Ordinance, the proceedings amounted to an abuse of process/res judicata with no outstanding matters, and granting relief would be otiose and serve no practical purpose.
30 Sept 2025

SARTIKA DEWI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4586
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1174/2022

Leave was refused and dismissed because the applicant's grounds were vague and lacked required particulars, the Board's decision disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality on anxious scrutiny and, since the applicant confirmed it was safe to return, any remedy would be otiose and the leave application had no realistic prospects of success.
19 Aug 2025

MUHAMMAD UMER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3674
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1569/2020

The Director's decision of 8 May 2018 was superseded by the Board's appeal decision and therefore not reviewable; the Board's decision of 18 June 2020 was subject to anxious scrutiny and contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and thus the leave application failed on the merits; the applicant's request to withdraw was refused and the application was dismissed as otiose given the applicant's affirmation that he no longer required protection.
8 Jun 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1552
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL402/2021

The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant filed an affirmation withdrawing the application and the court followed established authority that where a remedy would be otiose the court may decline to grant it.
28 Mar 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 810
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL966/2019

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant had withdrawn and the court exercised its established discretion to refuse relief that would be otiose and serve no practical purpose, citing AW v. Director of Immigration and authoritative texts.
9 Jun 2021

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

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1613
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL514/2019

Because the applicant expressly sought to withdraw the application and had no intention to proceed, the application had become otiose and the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the leave application in accordance with established authority on otiosity.