Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Withdrawal

Legal area

Court

31 Mar 2026

SIPKADUWA ANTHONI SRIYANI WIMALASOORIYA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1793
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1331/2022

The application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant validly withdrew the application and there was nothing outstanding in the action, after the court amended the Form 86 to correctly name the putative respondent and putative interested party.
26 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1163
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL345/2023

The court accepted the applicant's sworn affirmation that the withdrawal was voluntary and informed, that she understood the Board's decision would remain in force and that she wished to return home; on that basis the court allowed the withdrawal and granted leave to withdraw the leave application.
26 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 703
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL60/2021

The court amended Form 86 to name the Director of Immigration as putative interested party and dismissed the out-of-time application for leave because the applicant expressly withdrew the application and there was nothing outstanding in the action, applying the principle in Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471 that withdrawal where nothing is outstanding warrants dismissal.
26 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 308
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL612/2021

The court acceded to the applicant's withdrawal after he obtained a dependant visa and dismissed the application for leave as there was nothing outstanding; the Form 86 was amended to name only the TCAB as respondent and the Director of Immigration as the putative interested party.
19 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 325
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1419/2022

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law error in the Board's decision, the Board correctly applied the law and reached factual findings that were not vitiated by error, and the applicant withdrew the application such that the intended challenge was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.
19 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6146
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1417/2025

The leave application is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify or plead arguable public law grounds in Form 86 and did not demonstrate that the Board's factual findings involved error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; accordingly the proposed challenge was not reasonably arguable and did not meet the threshold for granting leave.
4 Nov 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5009
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1076/2024

Because the applicant voluntarily withdrew the application for leave and there was no outstanding matter in the action, the appropriate disposition is to dismiss the application for leave to apply for judicial review.
12 Aug 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3196
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1280/2023

The court dismissed the leave application because the applicant validly applied to withdraw it, there was no evidence the withdrawal was other than of her free will, and there were no outstanding matters; dismissal was therefore the appropriate disposal in line with Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471.
6 Aug 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3225
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL117/2025

Because the applicant voluntarily withdrew the application and there was no evidence to the contrary and no outstanding matters, the proper course was to dismiss the application rather than leave the action at large.
12 Jun 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2441
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2548/2024

The Court allowed the withdrawal because it was satisfied on the applicant’s sworn affirmation that the withdrawal was voluntary, that the applicant understood the consequences including finality of the Board’s decision and risk of refoulement, and that he wished to return to his home country.