Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Procedural compliance (form 86)

Legal area

Court

8 Jul 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2766
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL998/2020

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to provide any specific grounds in Form 86 or any explanation for the lengthy delay in filing, and the application was procedurally defective; the court corrected the omission by amending Form 86 to name the Director of Immigration but dismissed the leave application on the substantive procedural failures.
11 Jun 2025

KO KAI MING v. SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2366
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1237/2025

The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant lacked standing, failed to comply with the mandatory requirement in Order 53 r.3 to identify the decision, relief and public law grounds in Form 86, and the allegations were speculative and did not identify any arguable public law error by the Secretary.
18 Apr 2023

劉孝軒 v. 消防處

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 784
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1550/2022

Dismissal of the leave application: applicant failed to comply with Form 86 requirements and did not identify any arguable public law ground; FSD's refusal to approve withdrawal of resignation was a discretionary employment decision taken in accordance with CSR321(b) and adequately explained, and the dispute is principally a private employment matter not amenable to judicial review.
11 Aug 2022

張始文及另一人對沙螺洞發展有限公司 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2518
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL696/2022

Permission to apply for judicial review was refused because the suggested respondent is not a government department nor a statutory/public body amenable to judicial review and the applicants failed to comply with the mandatory requirement in Form 86 to state the reasons for seeking relief (Order 53 rule 3(2)(a)(iii)).
9 Jun 2022

董旺建對香港特別行政區行政長官 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1745
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL182/2022

Leave for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to comply with the mandatory requirement in Order 53 r3(2)(a)(iii) to identify the relief sought and the reasons for it in Form 86; independently, the application was hopelessly out of time with no extension sought and any constitutional challenge lacked arguable merit given prior decisions that the regulations are proportionate.
16 Sept 2020

TAMANG SAMJHANA v. DIRECTOR OF LEGAL AID

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2370
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1025/2018

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to comply with the mandatory Form 86 requirement to state relief and grounds (Order 53 r3(2)(a)(iii)), failed to name the correct decision-maker, failed to show an arguable case of illegality, unreasonableness or procedural unfairness, and the available statutory appeal remedy had been exercised, compounded by unjustified delay.

Hong Kong Case Law

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

KO KAI MING v. SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION

劉孝軒 v. 消防處

張始文及另一人 對 沙螺洞發展有限公司 [Decision on Leave Application]

董旺建 對 香港特別行政區行政長官 [Decision on Leave Application]

TAMANG SAMJHANA v. DIRECTOR OF LEGAL AID

張始文及另一人對沙螺洞發展有限公司 [Decision on Leave Application]

董旺建對香港特別行政區行政長官 [Decision on Leave Application]