Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Public law error

Legal area

Court

30 May 2025

ERSHAD CHOWDHURY SYED alias ERSHAD CHOWDHURY SYEDD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2174
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL276/2020

Dismissal: applicant failed to identify grounds in Form 86 and did not demonstrate any public law error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's credibility-based findings such that the challenge had realistic prospects of success; therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
14 Feb 2025

娄人元對香港特別行政區行政長官李家超及另一人 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 520
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2422/2024

Permission for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any decision or legal proceeding to be challenged, failed to allege any public law error, and the application was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.
27 Sept 2023

DO HUNG LOI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1081
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP53/2022

Extension of time to appeal was refused because the intended appeal lacked merit: the Board reasonably concluded the risk arose from private debt, not persecution or torture, state protection and internal relocation were available, and no arguable public law error was shown to impugn the Board's decision or the Judge's refusal to grant leave.
12 Apr 2023

THEKKETHALAKKAL VASUDEVAN UNNIKANNAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2023] HKCA 485
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP66/2023

Extension of time refused because the applicant's delay was substantial and there were no real prospects of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and factual conclusions were within its remit, there was no identified public law error (misdirection, procedural unfairness or irrationality), and judicial review cannot be used to rehear the merits.
18 Jan 2023

RE LACHHMAN SINGH

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1910
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP405/2022

Extension of time was refused because the applicant's delay was inordinate with no satisfactory explanation and the intended judicial review disclosed no reasonably arguable public law error against the Board or Director, making the appeal hopeless and futile.
7 May 2021

RE HAIDER ALI

Citation

[2021] HKCA 613
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP152/2019

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484, advanced new points not previously argued before the Court of Appeal, and did not demonstrate any public law error in the Board's credibility-based rejection of his non-refoulement claim.
16 Apr 2020

RE CHAUDHRY ASJAD IQBAL

Citation

[2020] HKCA 204
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV117/2019

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify a question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) Cap 484, did not provide particulars, and failed to identify reasonably arguable public law errors in the Board's decision; no basis existed under the 'otherwise' limb to grant leave.

Hong Kong Case Law

ERSHAD CHOWDHURY SYED alias ERSHAD CHOWDHURY SYEDD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

娄人元 對 香港特別行政區行政長官李家超及另一人 [Decision on Leave Application]

DO HUNG LOI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

THEKKETHALAKKAL VASUDEVAN UNNIKANNAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

RE LACHHMAN SINGH

RE HAIDER ALI

RE CHAUDHRY ASJAD IQBAL

娄人元對香港特別行政區行政長官李家超及另一人 [Decision on Leave Application]