Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Stay of removal

Legal area

Court

10 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 660
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2228/2020

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant had been granted stay in Hong Kong (28 July 2022), removing any live need for non‑refoulement protection and rendering the challenge to the Board's Decision academic; the court amended the Form 86 to correct the proper respondent on its own motion.
4 Jun 2021

HARVINDER SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCA 761
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV374/2020

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable ground to disturb the Court's judgment, his submissions duplicated earlier rejected submissions, the contested decision had been reversed by the Board, and no question of great general or public importance was shown.
11 Jun 2015

DHILLON KANWAR JEET SINGH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

DHILLON KANWAR JEET SINGH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL91/2015

The detention was lawful under section 32(3A) because a removal order under section 19(1)(b) was in force and the detention was legitimately pending removal under section 25; the applicant failed to demonstrate that the detention or proposed removal was unlawful and failed to establish any proper legal basis to justify issuance of a writ of habeas corpus or a stay of execution of the removal order.
25 Feb 2015

RK v. YS

Citation

RK v. YS
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC4931/2012

Leave to appeal was refused because the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success: the district judge's discretionary findings were within permissible ambit and not plainly wrong; the Japanese legal opinion did not establish inability to enforce access orders and enforcement difficulties are only one factor; evidence of maternal family support was adequate; post‑trial emails failed Ladd v Marshall criteria and would not affect the outcome; therefore no arguable case on appeal and stay was refused to avoid prejudicing children's schooling.
21 Feb 1997

TRAN THI DAU AND ANOTHER v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

TRAN THI DAU AND ANOTHER v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV43/1997

The judge did not err in exercising his discretion: the hearing before Sears J was inter partes (the Director was heard), the leave point raised an arguable issue under s13D(2) that warranted further consideration, and the interlocutory stay was properly granted pending substantive determination; therefore the appeal was dismissed.
6 Jan 1997

DIEP HOAI SUNG and Others v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION and Another

Citation

DIEP HOAI SUNG and Others v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION and Another
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP16/1997

Timing and delay alone did not establish that the applicants' challenge was wholly opportunistic; despite incomplete documentary material, the R.S.R.B.'s central factual belief about changed country conditions in Vietnam and the alleged failure to put that belief to the applicants warranted further investigation, and therefore leave to apply for judicial review was granted; removal from Hong Kong must be prevented pending determination by way of undertakings or, if necessary, an interlocutory injunction; no adjournment for production of all 'core documents' was required at leave stage.
11 Dec 1996

THOONG COC DUONG AND OTHERS v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

THOONG COC DUONG AND OTHERS v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV250/1996

Where a High Court judge grants ex parte leave to apply for judicial review the grant is provisional and, absent exceptional circumstances, challenge to that grant should be by application to the High Court to set aside the leave; accordingly the Court of Appeal will not entertain an appeal against the ex parte grant in the absence of exceptional circumstances and the stay granted by the judge was properly ordered and thus the appeal is dismissed.
17 Jul 1996

VAN CAN ON AND OTHERS v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND OTHERS

Citation

VAN CAN ON AND OTHERS v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2037/1996

The Director of Immigration is not obliged to consider the merits of an application or appeal for legal aid or to second‑guess the Registrar when deciding whether to exercise his power under s.13E(1) to order removal; the Director's policy of not treating the lodging of such an application or appeal as a reason for postponing removal is not irrational, and accordingly the court will not exercise its discretion to grant a stay for the 9 new applicants.