Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Scope of judicial review

Legal area

Court

30 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2223
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL223/2022

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify arguable public law grounds, the Board's decision displayed no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in view of its credibility and internal relocation findings, and the intended challenge lacked realistic prospects of success; a technical one-day delay was waived but did not justify granting leave.
29 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2419
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL702/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's grounds were unparticularised and amounted to an impermissible challenge to the Board's credibility and factual findings; the Court found no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's application of the USM and therefore the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.
9 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1071
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1704/2021

The leave application was dismissed and extension of time refused because the applicant did not seek or explain the delay, the intended judicial review was not reasonably arguable or had no realistic prospect of success, and the Board's assessment of credibility, state protection and internal relocation fell within its proper province with no demonstrable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
27 Jan 2026

WELASASIH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 471
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1583/2022

Leave was refused because the Applicant's grounds were bare, vague and without necessary particulars; the Director and Board lawfully and rationally evaluated credibility, COI, state protection and internal relocation; no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality was established and there was no realistic prospect of success.
27 Jan 2026

SALKA CASNITI BT KARJA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 475
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL621/2022

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; both decision-makers reasonably concluded the threats were not evidence of a real and substantial risk, state protection and internal relocation were available, and the applicant provided no particulars on leave and later confirmed she wished to return to Indonesia, so there was no prospect of success.
3 Nov 2025

DANISH ARSHAD MEHMOOD alias DANISH ARSHAD MOHMOOD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5233
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2300/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant was some 8.5 years out of time with no adequate explanation for the delay, the intended challenge had no arguable merits (no identifiable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's decisions), and refusal was warranted having regard to delay, lack of reasons, lack of prospects and prejudice to public administration.
11 Aug 2025

DELA CERNA BILLY BUMACOD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3518
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1057/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed because the Board Decision was supported by sound factual assessment and reasoning and there was no illegality, irrationality or procedural unfairness warranting judicial interference.
6 Aug 2025

AMIN RUHUL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3113
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1614/2020

The Applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or the Board's decisions; both bodies reasonably concluded that the risk was localized, state protection and viable internal relocation were available, and therefore there was no prospect of success on judicial review and leave was dismissed.
28 May 2025

LEELAN RUKESH MARASINGHE v. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2291
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1457/2018

Leave to cross-examine Dr Kong on the specified XXN Issues is justified and granted because there are apparent, material conflicts between the evidence of affiants and disclosed communications that cannot be resolved on the affidavits alone, and because the applicant is entitled to test Dr Kong's reliability, partiality and credibility on those narrow issues; the cross-examination is limited and to be conducted before the judge hearing the substantive judicial review.
20 Mar 2025

SUPAT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 906
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2507/2024

The court refused to extend time and dismissed the leave application because the applicant was more than nine months late with no good reason for the delay, and the intended application disclosed no reasonably arguable grounds: both the Director and the Board reasonably assessed the risk as low and found internal relocation and state protection available; no legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness was identified to justify judicial review.