Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Procedural fairness in appeals

Legal area

Court

14 May 2026

SITI MAYSAROH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2714
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL795/2023

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any legally arguable error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings were supported by inconsistencies and the availability of internal relocation was a valid basis to reject the claim, making the proposed challenge without a prospect of success.
17 Mar 2026

NGUYEN THI MAI HUONG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1362
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1613/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the applicant had appeared and given evidence before the Board, the Board's adverse credibility and risk findings were open on the evidence, and she therefore lacked any realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
8 Mar 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 550
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1568/2018

The applicant's grounds were unsupported by evidence and contradicted his in-court statements; the Adjudicator and Board properly considered the evidence and COI and reasonably concluded the claim was vague, unsubstantiated and that internal relocation was feasible; therefore the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
5 Oct 2018

PUN SHRWAN KUMAR v. BETTY KWAN AND OTHERS [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2103
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL18/2018

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness: the Director and the Board conducted lawful, reasonable assessments of risk and COI, found no credible evidence of state acquiescence or real and substantial risk, and their fact‑finding role cannot be usurped on judicial review.
24 Jul 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1628
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL712/2017

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's grounds were not reasonably arguable: both the Director and the TCAB considered relevant, objective and up-to-date COI and reasonably concluded on the applicant's own facts that her fear arose from private disputes, that State protection and internal relocation were available, that there was no real risk of torture/CIDTP or persecution, and there was no procedural unfairness or legal error amounting to Wednesbury unreasonableness.
3 Jun 1999

NGUYEN TRONG SON v. DIRECTOR OF LEGAL AID

Citation

NGUYEN TRONG SON v. DIRECTOR OF LEGAL AID
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAA20/1999

The court held that the appeal was properly constituted despite unsigned forms because the solicitors acted as duly authorised agents; the Director of Legal Aid is entitled and obliged to assess the strength or weakness of the applicant's case when deciding legal aid. However, where the Director places documents before the court bearing on that assessment, procedural fairness requires that relevant documents be disclosed to the appellant's solicitors (subject to data protection analysis). Applying Van Can On, the judge directed that copies of the documents in the Legal Aid Department file rel…

Hong Kong Case Law

SITI MAYSAROH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

NGUYEN THI MAI HUONG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

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

PUN SHRWAN KUMAR v. BETTY KWAN AND OTHERS [Decision on Leave Application]

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

NGUYEN TRONG SON v. DIRECTOR OF LEGAL AID