Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Procedural requirements under order 53

Legal area

Court

30 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2283
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2041/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant was no longer in need of non-refoulement protection at the time of decision: she was removed on 15 November 2023 and later granted and took up Hong Kong residency as a dependent visa holder in November 2023; additionally the court amended Form 86 on its own motion to name the proper respondent and interested party.
26 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1685
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2215/2024

The court allowed the withdrawal because the applicant’s unchallenged affirmation established that the withdrawal was voluntary, that he understood the finality of the Board’s decision and the risk of refoulement, and therefore it was appropriate to permit withdrawal of the leave application.
26 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1734
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL527/2023

The application to withdraw was allowed because the Court was satisfied the applicant's decision was an informed, conscious and freely made choice with no evidence of coercion or misunderstanding, and therefore the leave application was withdrawn.
26 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1737
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL291/2024

The withdrawal application was allowed because the applicant expressly stated she wished to return home and that her problem was resolved, and the court, after reviewing the Board's decision and all papers, found no suggestion the withdrawal was anything other than a free, informed and conscious decision; therefore the leave application is withdrawn.
26 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1162
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL733/2025

The Applicant demonstrated by affirmation that the withdrawal was voluntary and informed, including awareness of the finality of the Board's decision and the risk of refoulement; accordingly the court allowed the withdrawal and the leave application was withdrawn, leaving the Board's decision final and binding.
3 Dec 2025

EVER FAST LTD AND OBVIO YIP COMPANY LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5834
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL98/2006

The court dismissed the applicant's application for leave to apply for judicial review on the basis that the applicant failed to meet the threshold requirements for leave; no order as to costs was made.
10 Nov 2025

MR, CHOW KIN HANG ALI v. MR. KWOK LAM KWONG LARRY, JP THE CHAIRMAN OF INDEPENDENT POLICE COMPLAINTS COUNCIL (IPCC) [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5462
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL869/2017

The court concluded the applicant demonstrated an arguable case sufficient to justify the grant of leave to apply for judicial review against the Chairman of the IPCC; the ordinary procedural requirements under Order 53 were imposed and no order as to costs was made.
9 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3752
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL606/2022

The court accepted the applicant's voluntary withdrawal and, since there was no evidence the withdrawal was not free or that any matters remained outstanding, the proper disposal was to dismiss the application rather than leave the action at large, consistent with authority in Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi and Order 53 principles.
22 Aug 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3690
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1122/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant provided no arguable grounds, did not show any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision, and the Director's earlier decision was superseded and not reviewable after appeal to the Board; the Form was amended to name the correct parties.
1 Aug 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3235
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1059/2020

Applicant filed an affirmation seeking withdrawal and was absent from the hearing, indicating no intention to proceed; the withdrawal rendered the challenge against the Board's decision moot, so the court dismissed the leave application and on its own motion amended Form 86 to designate the Board as putative respondent and the Director as putative interested party.