Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Protection of minors

Legal area

Court

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.
3 Jan 2025

LINA ANTI KASARI AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCA 47
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV156/2024

The appeals are dismissed because the applicants failed to identify any viable legal or procedural ground to overturn the Judge's refusal of leave; the Board's factual findings that there were no substantial grounds for real risk and that state protection/internal relocation were reasonably available were not shown to be legally flawed, procedurally unfair or irrational, and no distinct child-specific grounds were left unconsidered due to lack of representation.
24 Apr 2023

GIRI ANUP KUMAR AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2023] HKCA 515
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP394/2022

The application for extension of time to appeal was refused because the Applicants failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground of appeal demonstrating an error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's or Director's decisions; the minor's claim had been considered separately and fairly and no minor-specific grounds requiring rehearing were shown; there was no prospect of success and no justification to extend time.
18 Apr 2013

HKSAR v. TONG KAM TIN

Citation

HKSAR v. TONG KAM TIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA738/2012

The appellate court found no error in the Magistrate's exercise of sentencing discretion: the Magistrate considered the appellant's circumstances, applied the guilty plea discount, and appropriately treated the victim's young age and the appellant's knowledge of it as an aggravating factor; therefore there was no basis to interfere with the six months' imprisonment sentence.
8 Mar 2011

CHIU MAN FU AND OTHERS v. CHIU CHUNG KWAN YING

Citation

CHIU MAN FU AND OTHERS v. CHIU CHUNG KWAN YING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP9/2005

The court held that, on balancing the minors' right to privacy against the freedom of the press, the protection of the minors from media intrusion overwhelmingly outweighed press interests and an injunction in the terms of the draft order should be granted to restrain identification of the minors.
25 Oct 2002

CHANTEX ENGINEERING LTD. v. YIP YUET SIU AND OTHERS

Citation

CHANTEX ENGINEERING LTD. v. YIP YUET SIU AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC572/2002

The employer was entitled to apply under s6D(9) and payment into court was valid; the Court will make the Commissioner’s Certificates orders of the Court and supervise distribution to protect minors; where payment was arguably late the employer had a reasonable excuse so surcharges were not imposed; the Court may grant leave to appeal out of time under s6H and vary the Commissioner's apportionment to include additional beneficiaries.
25 Oct 2002

CHANTEX ENGINEERING LTD. v. CHAN HEI TAI AND OTHERS

Citation

CHANTEX ENGINEERING LTD. v. CHAN HEI TAI AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC571/2002

Employer was entitled to apply under s6D(9) and to pay the Commissioner\'s Certificate into court; such payment was valid and in any event the employer had a reasonable excuse for any lateness so as to avoid surcharges; the Court made the Certificates orders, granted liberty for payment out to minors to be applied for, paid adults out, allowed a joint application for leave to appeal out of time under s6H in DCEC 735 and varied the Commissioner\'s apportionment to include two stepsons with specified percentages; costs reserved with no order (parties to bear their own costs).
2 Feb 1990

THE QUEEN v. BARRY SUMMERS

Citation

THE QUEEN v. BARRY SUMMERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC457/1989

The Court held the trial judge's starting point of 3.5 years was a proper general starting point for buggery involving a 16-year-old, the discount for plea was properly allowed, and the applicant's previous convictions and the need to protect minors justified the imposed concurrent sentences; leave to appeal was refused.
8 May 1986

THE QUEEN v. ALBERT STANLEY MALIA

Citation

THE QUEEN v. ALBERT STANLEY MALIA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR8/1986

Where offences involve acts of gross indecency with a boy under 14, suspension of an immediate custodial sentence is impermissible in the absence of clearly identified exceptional circumstances; the trial judge must state such circumstances and, absent them, the appellate court will impose immediate custody — accordingly suspension was set aside and immediate concurrent sentences imposed.
1 Mar 1985

TANG YUK KAM AND OTHERS v. TANG HING LOI AND OTHERS

Citation

TANG YUK KAM AND OTHERS v. TANG HING LOI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4328/1981

Application for interlocutory distribution was dismissed because there was insufficient and unreliable evidence of who the beneficiaries were, who was entitled to vote, and who had authority to sign; the court exercised its discretion against distribution pending proper registration and clarification of membership and voting entitlements.