Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Procedural irregularity

Legal area

Court

20 May 2026

TAHIR KASHIF acting as the next friend of TAHIR MUHAMMAD ARHAM DAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2719
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL44/2026

The court refused to extend time and dismissed the application because it was filed over two years late and the applicant had no realistic prospect of success: the Board properly assessed risks (torture, BOR 2 and 3, persecution), found state protection and internal relocation viable, and there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting intervention.
22 Apr 2026

PARAMJIT KAUR AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1931
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2004/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success; the Board's factual findings that the claimed risks were remote or speculative were within its fact-finding province and did not disclose errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality sufficient to justify judicial review.
22 Apr 2026

NILASARI MERISTIKA AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1834
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1202/2020

The court refused extension of time because the delay (30 days) was unjustified, the applicants failed to show sufficient reasons and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success given that the Board’s factual findings that the non-refoulement claim was unsubstantiated had not been properly challenged; accordingly the joint application was dismissed.
1 Apr 2026

TO THI CHAU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2026] HKCA 562
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV135/2024

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicants failed to identify any particular mistake in the Court of Appeal's decision and did not present any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) or any basis under the 'or otherwise' limb; procedural non-compliance by the minor's representative was properly treated as a mere irregularity under Order 2 rule 1.
20 Mar 2026

KAMRAN JAVID v. PERMANENT SECRETARY FOR SECURITY

Citation

[2026] HKCA 415
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV250/2023

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the intended grounds were mere re‑runs of arguments already considered and rejected by this Court, were fact‑specific and lacked any question of great general or public importance, and in any event the grounds lacked arguable merit given the CA's and CFI's reasoning on consistency, procedural issues, weighting of children's ages and the implied refusal to shorten a lifelong deportation order; costs awarded to respondent.
4 Feb 2026

RAJPUT HARMEET AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 702
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1292/2025

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse factual findings (gang neutralised, state protection available, internal relocation feasible, no separate risk to minors) were not shown to be legally or factually unreasonable, and procedural non‑compliance was properly treated as a mere irregularity rather than rendering the minors' application void.
30 Dec 2025

SWARI NILA SAHABTI AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6427
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1662/2025

The subsequent claim (HCAL 1662/2025) is struck out as an abuse of process because it duplicated earlier proceedings; leave to apply for judicial review of the Board's decision (HCAL 2390/2024) is refused because the applicants have not identified arguable grounds showing error of law, procedural unfairness or a realistic prospect of success, and non‑compliance with Order 80 r.2 is treated as a mere irregularity not rendering the child's application a nullity.
23 Dec 2025

AHIBAFU JENNIFER OLUCHI AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6241
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2276/2023

The applicants failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospect of success because the Board's findings that the claims were unsubstantiated, that state protection was available and internal relocation was viable were supported by the evidence; procedural non-compliance did not render the daughter's application a nullity; accordingly leave was refused.
17 Dec 2025

DUONG THI THANH THUY AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5928
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1730/2020

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success or identifiable legal error in the Board's findings; the Board had considered child-specific issues (including in A4's appeal) and state protection/internal relocation findings were supported by evidence; absence of separate legal representation for minors did not render the Board's decisions unlawful; procedural non-compliance was a mere irregularity and did not nullify the minors' applications.
2 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5784
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1143/2025

The application for leave was dismissed because the statutory scheme and binding Court of Appeal authority establish that a valid written notice of withdrawal disposes the appeal and renders the Board functus officio, eliminating any arguable basis for judicial review of the Board's decision; the applicant's remedy is to commence a fresh non-refoulement claim under the statute.