Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Translation and interpretation

Legal area

Court

8 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4032
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL809/2020

Leave was refused because the Form 86 and affirmation were generic and unparticularised, the TCAB/NRCPO's decision did not disclose any public law error or irrationality on the record, the applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not provide a satisfactory explanation for delay or change of address, and no good reason existed to extend time under the statutory test.
16 Jan 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 133
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1334/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness: the Director and the Board lawfully applied COI, concluded the risk was localized and internal relocation was reasonable, the applicant had assistance at relevant stages, and the complaints about representation and translation were speculative and not reasonably arguable.
24 Sept 2018

RE WARYAM SINGH

Citation

[2018] HKCA 633
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV177/2018

The judge below and this Court correctly held that the applicant did not demonstrate any error of law or procedural unfairness: the NCF was translated and read back, no specific mistranslation or prejudice was identified, the lack of counsel on appeal caused no demonstrated prejudice, credibility findings and COI reliance fell within the Board's evaluative remit, and therefore there was no prospect of success in a judicial review; the appeal is dismissed.
15 May 2014

JARIABKA JURAJ v. HKSAR

Citation

JARIABKA JURAJ v. HKSAR
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL52/2014

The applicant failed to meet the high threshold for criminal judicial review because the trial judge had considered the circumstances and provided for on‑trial interpretation and the availability of appellate review provided an adequate alternative remedy; therefore the court should not interfere by staying the proceedings.

Hong Kong Case Law

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

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

RE WARYAM SINGH

JARIABKA JURAJ v. HKSAR