Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Service of hearing bundle

Legal area

Court

8 Mar 2024

劉祖榮對陳淑惠

Citation

[2024] HKCA 210
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV288/2023

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant's pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action or were barred by limitation or constituted an abuse of process; any procedural non-compliance (timing/method of service or absence of an affidavit) did not cause prejudice sufficient to overturn the strike-out; and the costs assessment at HKD33,150 was within the court's discretion and not demonstrably wrong.
23 Sept 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2340
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL738/2018

The Applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the appeal bundle was served in accordance with procedure, there was no evidence of prejudice from lack of representation or language difficulties, the medical evidence did not justify non‑compliance or adjournment, and therefore the application had no realistic prospect of success — leave is refused.
19 Aug 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2053
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL375/2018

The Adjudicator's findings were supported by the evidence, the applicant failed to demonstrate procedural unfairness or prejudice from lack of representation or late bundle service, applicable service rules were complied with, and the Board's decision was not irrational; accordingly the applicant had no realistic prospect of success and leave was refused.
26 Mar 2019

RE RAHMAN TALUKDER MD ATIKUR

Citation

[2019] HKCA 356
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV564/2018

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant's complaints were not reasonably arguable; the Deputy High Court Judge properly applied the applicable standard of review, the Board had a proper basis for its findings that threats did not attain minimum severity, state protection and internal relocation were available, procedural requirements including bundle service were met, no evidential basis existed for state acquiescence or need for psychiatric reports, and there was no error of law or procedural unfairness warranting leave for judicial review.
7 Mar 2019

ALAM KHORSED v. GINA TOWNEY, ESQ. [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 537
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL759/2018

The Adjudicator's findings that the Applicant was not credible and that there was no real risk of torture, persecution, BOR2 or BOR3 breaches, together with findings that state protection and internal relocation were available, were rational and lawful; no error of law or procedural unfairness was shown, the appeal bundle was served in time, and the Applicant's complaints were not reasonably arguable — therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
1 Feb 2019

GHOUS NIAZ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 222
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL810/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's complaints were not reasonably arguable; the Adjudicator's decision with regard to credibility, severity of ill‑treatment, state protection and internal relocation withstood rigorous examination, there was no error of law, and there was no procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness that would justify judicial review.
19 Dec 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2766
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL389/2018

Leave refused because the Applicant's complaints were not reasonably arguable: the appeal bundle was served in time, there was no demonstrated prejudice from lack of legal representation or language difficulties, the Adjudicator conducted a careful credibility assessment (including rejection of a belated changed account) and applied the law correctly; there was no procedural unfairness, error of law or irrationality and no realistic prospects of success.
21 Nov 2018

EVI YUNITA AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2414
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL269/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicants' complaints were not reasonably arguable: the Adjudicator's findings, including adverse credibility findings and conclusions on state protection and internal relocation, were supported by evidence, the appeal bundle was served in accordance with procedural rules and no prejudice was shown, and there were no demonstrable errors of law or procedural unfairness warranting judicial intervention under the elevated but deferential standard applicable to non-refoulement cases.
20 Nov 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2410
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1163/2017

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant's complaints were not reasonably arguable: the appeal bundle was served within the prescribed period, there was no procedural unfairness or error of law by the Adjudicator, the 2016 claim did not meet the statutory definition of torture so omission to treat it as such caused no prejudice, state protection and internal relocation were viable findings, and the Applicant had no realistic prospects of success.