Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Standard of review of factual findings

  • 27 Apr 2026

    ZZ v. LX

    Citation
    [2026] HKCA 868
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAMP283/2023

    Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds amounted to challenges to the Judge's factual findings without demonstrating they were plainly wrong or involved a palpable error; the Judge applied correct legal principles, appropriately preferred and adopted Social Welfare Reports and PD v KWW as the leading authority on joint custody, and there was no reasonable prospect of success or other sufficient interest of justice to warrant an appeal.

    • Joint custody
    • Access/visitation
    • Leave to appeal
    • Standard of review of factual findings
    • Social welfare reports
    • Costs

  • 24 Mar 2026

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

    Citation
    [2026] HKCFI 1465
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL439/2022

    Leave was refused because the Form 86 failed to plead clear, particularised and arguable grounds against the Board; the Board had applied the correct legal tests, reached conclusions that did not disclose error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality (including findings that past ill-treatment lacked requisite severity and that state protection/internal relocation were available), and the applicant's challenge lacked realistic prospects of success.

    • Leave to apply for judicial review
    • Non-refoulement
    • Torture risk
    • Article 2 hkbor (right to life)
    • Article 3 hkbor (torture/ill-treatment)
    • Persecution risk

  • 30 Dec 2025

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

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 6361
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL2289/2020

    Leave was granted because the applicant raised reasonably arguable public law grounds: the Board arguably misapprehended and failed to take into account accepted evidence of past injuries and did not adequately assess state protection/COI in the context of a powerful alleged persecutor, rendering the Board's conclusions arguably irrational and procedurally unfair and meeting the threshold for leave under established authority.

    • Leave to apply for judicial review
    • Procedural fairness
    • Irrationality/unreasonableness
    • Risk assessment of future harm
    • State protection and coi
    • Standard of review of factual findings

  • 17 Dec 2025

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

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 6013
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL613/2024

    Leave was refused because the applicant failed to specify arguable grounds of public law error or demonstrate procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's factual findings; the Board applied the law correctly and the applicant's challenge was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.

    • Leave to apply for judicial review
    • Procedural fairness
    • Standard of review of factual findings
    • Translation and interpreter assistance
    • Internal relocation

  • 2 Sept 2025

    JOMPILLA ETHEL GONZALES v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 3960
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL218/2025

    The Board's factual findings that the applicant's claims were not credible and that state protection and internal relocation were available were not shown to involve any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the applicant's grounds were vague and unsupported and she failed to advance arguable legal grounds at the leave hearing, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused though a short extension of time for filing was granted.

    • Leave to apply for judicial review
    • Extension of time
    • Standard of review of factual findings
    • Credibility findings
    • Procedural fairness
    • Internal relocation and state protection

  • 27 Aug 2025

    URALA GAMAGE HASITHA RUWAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 3717
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL1025/2020

    The applicant failed to identify arguable grounds and did not show any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusion of no substantial risk were permissible; the applicant's delay of more than four months lacked a good explanation, accordingly no extension of time was granted and the leave application was dismissed.

    • Leave to apply for judicial review
    • Extension of time
    • Judicial review grounds
    • Credibility findings
    • Standard of review of factual findings

  • 8 Aug 2025

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

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 3511
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL741/2020

    Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show prejudice from lack of legal representation, the TCAB properly considered and addressed the applicant's medical condition and risk claims, the TCAB's factual findings were supported and subject to anxious scrutiny, and there was no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial review.

    • Leave to apply for judicial review
    • Procedural fairness
    • Legal representation
    • Language assistance
    • Medical condition and article 3 bor
    • Standard of review of factual findings

  • 4 Jun 2025

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

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 2211
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL472/2020

    The Leave Application is dismissed because the applicant failed to specify arguable grounds of public law error, the Board's decision involved factual findings that did not reveal legal error or procedural unfairness, and the application was filed out of time with an unconvincing explanation and negligible prospects of success, so extension of time was refused.

    • Judicial review
    • Leave to apply for judicial review
    • Limitation and extension of time
    • Procedural fairness
    • Standard of review of factual findings

  • 25 Feb 2025

    香港特別行政區 訴 張志雄

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 1230
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA332/2023

    On the objective facts the magistrate was entitled to find there was no reasonable excuse to cross the continuous white line; the circumstances were not an emergency, safer stopping options existed, and the magistrate's credibility and necessity findings were open on the evidence, therefore the appeal is dismissed.

    • Reasonable excuse
    • Appeal against conviction
    • Standard of review of factual findings

  • 5 Oct 2023

    RE AJAYPAL SINGH

    Citation
    [2023] HKCA 1128
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAMP398/2022

    The summons for extension of time was dismissed because the applicant’s delay (19 days) was unexplained and unjustified, he failed to identify any arguable grounds of appeal or any error in the JR Decision or the Board’s findings, and granting an extension would be futile given the absence of a realistic prospect of success.

    • Extension of time to appeal
    • Leave to apply for judicial review
    • Credibility findings
    • Wednesbury unreasonableness
    • Standard of review of factual findings