RE TRAN TRONG DAI
Outcome
Leave to appeal refusedleave to apply for judicial review was refused.
Source: [2025] HKCA 1116, Court of Appeal, decided 23 December 2025. Read directly from the judgment.
Judges (2)
Case Significance
Re Tran Trong Dai [2025] HKCA 1116 was decided by the Court of Appeal on 23 December 2025, in a matter engaging section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, the Immigration Ordinance, and the Rules of the High Court. The Court of Appeal's holding states: "leave to apply for judicial review was refused." This followed the earlier decision in Tran Trong Dai v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office [2025] HKCFI 1871.
The refusal was subsequently referred to in a series of non-refoulement judicial review applications before the Court of First Instance, including Nguyen Thi Khanh Hoa v. Director of Immigration [2026] HKCFI 1172, Warsimah v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office [2026] HKCFI 1645, Bui Thi Thuy v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office [2026] HKCFI 2019, and Golingo Jovelyn Baybayan and Another v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office [2026] HKCFI 685.
Summary
Vietnamese national Tran Trong Dai renewed his application for extension of time to appeal against the refusal of leave for judicial review of the Torture Claims Appeal Board's decision rejecting his non-refoulement claim. The intended judicial review concerned the Board's dismissal of his appeal against the Director's rejection of his claim. The application was dismissed.
What did the Court of Appeal decide in Re Tran Trong Dai [2025] HKCA 1116?
The Court of Appeal refused leave to apply for judicial review in Re Tran Trong Dai [2025] HKCA 1116, upholding the earlier Court of First Instance decision in Tran Trong Dai v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office [2025] HKCFI 1871.
What legislation was engaged in Re Tran Trong Dai [2025] HKCA 1116?
The application engaged the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, specifically section 8, alongside the Immigration Ordinance and the Rules of the High Court, in the context of a refused non-refoulement judicial review application.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (3)
Cited By (4)
Citation influence
HKLII records this judgment as cited by 2 later judgments. This counts every later Hong Kong judgment that references this case, which is broader than the resolved citations listed above.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Hong Kong Courts portal.
Read on HKLIISource: HKLII ([2025] HKCA 1116)