Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Standards of review

Legal area

Court

15 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCA 791
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV189/2026

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error in the judge's decision refusing extension of time and leave; the grounds advanced were general and lacking particulars and therefore no viable basis existed to reverse the judge, and the Court will not substitute its own assessment for that of the Board absent error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
30 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCA 742
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV822/2025

The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to advance any viable grounds or identify any error in the judge's refusal of leave; bare, unparticularised allegations are insufficient and the Court will not overturn the judge or re-examine the Board's decision absent error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
17 Mar 2026

HASAN MOHAMMAD KAMRUL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1579
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL831/2021

Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings were supported by detailed reasons and oral evidence; and the Board and Director reasonably concluded that internal relocation negated non-refoulement risk, so there was no prospect of success.
19 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5954
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL502/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any grounds of review or to substantiate material facts; the TCAB's findings were supported by evidence and founded on correct legal principles under the Unified Screening Mechanism, and no arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality was shown.
17 Nov 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5478
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1693/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or the Board's decisions; both decision-makers had assessed the evidence and reasonably concluded the risk was localized, state protection and internal relocation in India were available, and therefore there was no prospect of success on judicial review.
3 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3943
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1035/2020

The leave application was dismissed because the TCAB's findings on credibility and risk were supported by evidence and fell within its factual discretion, and the applicant failed to identify any error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness that would justify judicial review; therefore the Court will not substitute its view for the TCAB's factual conclusions.
8 May 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1754
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL480/2020

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision, which provided comprehensive and adequate reasons.
7 Dec 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3022
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1177/2019

Applicant has no realistic prospect of success because the Board's factual findings that past ill-treatment lacked requisite severity and intent, the dispute was private, state protection was available and internal relocation viable were within the Board's fact-finding remit and not vitiated by error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
14 Mar 2023

LAM POON SHING 對歐陽浩榮暫委法官

Citation

[2023] HKCA 329
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV338/2022

The Court refused permission to appeal because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error or novel point of law of wide public importance under s22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance; the proposed appeal is barred by settled legal principle that the impugned judicial decision is not amenable to judicial review and, on the facts and submissions, the application is an abuse of process and has no realistic prospect of success. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused and the motion dismissed with no order as to costs.
26 Jul 2022

AZHARUDDIN SK v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2273
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL516/2022

The Director's refusal of the subsequent claim was lawful because the applicant failed to show a significant change in circumstances under s37ZO and the claim relied on substantially the same facts already finally determined; there was no legal error or procedural unfairness and the factual findings were not Wednesbury unreasonable, so leave to apply for judicial review must be refused; an RPO is justified because the applicant sought to re-litigate identical facts and was likely to abuse the court process.