Case Detail

BRAR JASPREET SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Related cases with same parties

CACV1026/2025PHAM VAN DUNG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
CACV11/2022NNABUIHE GIFT EKEOMA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
CACV112/2023SRI-RAHAYU AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
CACV114/2024BABAR IMRAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
CACV1154/2025KHAN ZABAT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
CACV1165/2025NGUYEN XUAN CUONG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
CACV1167/2025MUHAMMAD KHALID v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
CACV1168/2025NGUYEN THI HUONG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
CACV118/2020NILA AGUSTINA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
CACV1235/2025FRAZ DIL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
CACV1238/2025NGUYEN VAN THANH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
CACV1244/2025KHAROTAI HAYAT GUL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
CACV1250/2025SUMEET RANA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
CACV1258/2025NGUYEN HA NAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
CACV126/2025SANJAY KUMAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
CACV130/2018BEGUM KHADIJA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
CACV13/2025ISLAM MD RAFIQUL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
CACV135/2024TO THI CHAU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
CACV137/2022KHUC THI MAI TRANG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
CACV14/2022ARSHAD MUHAMMAD ALIAS FAISAL ALIAS MUHAMMAD FAISAL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Files (2)

[2022] HKCA 61-EN-2022-01-18

BRAR JASPREET SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HTML content

CACV 371/2021

[2022] HKCA 61

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 371 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 322 OF 2021)

________________________

BETWEEN

	BRAR JASPREET SINGH	Applicant
	and
	TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD	Putative Respondent
	and
	DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION	Putative Interested Party

________________________

Before: Hon Au and Chow JJA in Court

Date of Written Submission: 14 December 2021

Date of Judgment: 18 January 2022

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1. On 13 October 2021, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Bruno Chan dated 23 July 2021 striking out his application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office/Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 3 February 2015 on the ground of abuse of process.

2. The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 7 December 2021 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the following is stated:

“… I am late for apply due to lack of knowledge and insufficient sources. Please accept my filling application so that I can process my case further. I hope I will get your favour.”

3. In his written submissions dated 14 December 2021, the Applicant repeats his non-refoulement claim, but has not raised any ground of his intended appeal against the CA Judgment.

4. Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of, inter alia, the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

5. No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal. There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

6. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

(Thomas Au)	(Anderson Chow)
Justice of Appeal	Justice of Appeal

The Applicant, acting in person

CACV 371/2021

[2021] HKCA 1451

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 371 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 322 OF 2021)

________________________

BETWEEN
	BRAR JASPREET SINGH	Applicant
and
	TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD	Putative Respondent
and
	DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION	Putative Interested Party

________________________

Before: Hon Au and Chow JJA in Court

Date of Written Submission: 13 August 2021

Date of Judgment: 15 October 2021

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

Hon Chow JA (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. By a Notice of Decision dated 16 September 2014, the Director of Immigration rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim based on Torture Risk, BOR 3 Risk and Persecution Risk.

2. On 3 February 2015, the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the Director’s decision (“the Board’s Decision”).

3. On 26 July 2017, Lok J dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision in HCAL 37/2016 (“the 1^st JR Decision”). The Applicant did not appeal the 1^st JR Decision.

4. By a Notice of Further Decision dated 10 January 2017, the Director of Immigration rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim based on BOR 2 Risk. The Applicant did not appeal the Director’s further decision.

5. On 10 March 2021, the applicant filed another Form 86 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision, but did not put forward any ground to justify a second application to challenge the Board’s Decision.

6. On 23 July 2021, Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan struck out and dismissed the applicant’s second application for leave to apply for judicial review on (inter alia) the ground of abuse of process (“the 2^nd JR Decision”).

7. On 30 July 2021, the applicant filed the Notice of Appeal herein against the 2^nd JR Decision, stating that:

“The grounds will be provided at a later date.”

8. In his submissions dated 13 August 2021, the applicant stated (inter alia) that he did not know that he had applied for judicial review before. This allegation is plainly incorrect, because the applicant was legally represented by counsel and solicitors (assigned by the Director of Legal Aid) before Lok J on 18 July 2017 in his first application for judicial review.

9. The applicant’s second application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision is patently an abuse of the court’s process (see Bepary Shahealom v Torture Claims Appeal Board[2018] HKCA 763), and was rightly struck out by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan. The present appeal is unarguable.

10. Accordingly, the Notice of Appeal dated 30 July 2021 is struck out, and the appeal is dismissed.

11. Should the applicant make any further application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision, the Court of First Instance should consider making a restricted proceedings order against the applicant to prevent such abuse of process under the court’s inherent jurisdiction.

(Thomas Au)	(Anderson Chow)
Justice of Appeal	Justice of Appeal

The Applicant, acting in person