Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Right to legal representation

Legal area

Court

27 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 950
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1394/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant failed to particularise any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; a hearing had been afforded and the Board provided adequate reasons; the Applicant's case lacked reasonable prospects of success and the leave gateway was not satisfied.
30 Mar 2026

LYONS MARY JANE TICANO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1722
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL569/2022

The leave application was dismissed because the alleged lack of legal representation and language assistance did not render the Board's process unfair: there is no absolute right to free legal representation or interpretation at all stages, the Applicant had representation before the Director, documents were in English and interpreter services were available, and there was no complaint at the Board hearing; accordingly no error of law or procedural unfairness was shown.
10 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1173
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL312/2022

The leave application was dismissed because the Board conducted a hearing, interpreter services were available at hearings, the Applicant had representation before the Director, there was no established right to free legal representation or interpretation at all stages, and the Board's decision disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and therefore the Applicant's challenge was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.
18 Nov 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5360
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1704/2020

The application for leave was refused because the applicant repeatedly refused to engage with hearings despite interpretation being provided, thereby failing to discharge his duty to cooperate; the Board's adverse assessment of credibility and the resultant negative conclusion on risk were within its fact-finding province and did not amount to error of law or procedural unfairness, so there was no reasonably arguable ground for judicial review.
3 Nov 2025

MD MOAZZEM HOSSAIN v. NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3011
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL884/2020

Leave was refused because the Applicant was significantly out of time (11 months and 29 days) with no documentary justification, the Adjudicator lawfully considered available materials and exercised discretion, and no arguable public law error, procedural unfairness or irrationality was shown making the proposed JR not reasonably arguable.
8 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4032
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL809/2020

Leave was refused because the Form 86 and affirmation were generic and unparticularised, the TCAB/NRCPO's decision did not disclose any public law error or irrationality on the record, the applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not provide a satisfactory explanation for delay or change of address, and no good reason existed to extend time under the statutory test.
2 Jul 2025

BAHADUR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2533
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL118/2024

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success; his procedural complaints were unsubstantiated and amounted to bare assertions rather than legal errors or procedural unfairness, and the Board's factual findings that the claim was unsubstantiated and that state protection and internal relocation were viable were within its fact-finding province and rational.
30 Jun 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2058
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL204/2020

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the Board lawfully and fairly applied the law, its adverse credibility and risk findings were open to it on the evidence, and complaints advanced were either speculative, too vague, or amounted to merits challenges not cognisable on judicial review.
30 May 2025

RE DIYAH AYU ASTUTI

Citation

[2025] HKCA 471
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP196/2023

The Court refused the extension of time because the Judge’s order was sent to the applicant’s last known address and not returned, creating an inference of notice; the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness in the Board’s or Judge’s decisions; claims of lack of representation and interpretation did not establish a right or produce an arguable error; the intended appeal was hopeless, so no extension of time should be granted.
9 May 2025

香港特別行政區訴港消新基有限公司及另一人

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3019
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA175/2024

法院接納答辯方承認並裁定：審訊期間暫委裁判官拒絕押後及拒絕提供審訊錄音/謄本，剝奪了上訴人獲得有效法律代表及充分陳辯的機會，致審訊不公，故上訴就定罪成立，裁定撤銷定罪並擱置刑罰。