|
HCAL 1498/2018
[2018] HKCFI 2317
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST
NO. 1498 OF 2018
BETWEEN
|
NONIS PATTINI KUTTIGE SAMPATH THUSHARA |
Applicant |
|
and |
|
|
The Petition Teams (Security Bureau) |
Putative Respondent |
|
and |
|
|
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD |
Putative Interested Party |
Application for leave to apply for judicial review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Order 53, rule 3)
Following:
Order by the Honourable Mr. Justice Anthony Chan
The application for leave to apply for judicial review be refused.
Observations for the applicant:
1. These are my short reasons.
2. This application was filed on 30 July 2018 (Application) with a supporting affirmation of the same date (Affirmation). Neither of these documents contain any ground for the Application.
3. It was suggested in the Affirmation that the Applicant would provide his grounds for the Application. A letter to him from the Torture Claims Appeal Board (Board) dated 12 July 2018 was exhibited to the Affirmation. That letter referred to an attached document setting out the reasons of the Board by which the Applicant’s appeal was declined. However, that document was not exhibited to the Affirmation.
4. Nearly two and a half months had expired since the filing of the Application. No ground has been received from the Applicant.
5. This Applicant had previously made an application for leave to apply for judicial review (HCAL 17/2013) in respect of a decision of the Board dated 7 January 2013 on his torture claim.
6. After the refusal of leave by this court, the Applicant lodged an appeal to the Court of Appeal. However, his appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution on 4 September 2013 (CACV 49/2013).
7. The Applicant is not ignorant of the procedure of the court. I see no reason to entertain this application when he has not provided any ground in support or even the decision of the Board against him. Nothing has been heard from the Applicant since 30 July 2018.
8. In the premises, this application is refused.
Dated the 15th day of October 2018.
|
(Gladys Cheng)
for Registrar, High Court |
Where leave to apply has been granted, applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of the application in the light of the respondent’s evidence.
Notes for the applicant:
If leave has been granted, the applicant or his solicitors must: |
|
|
|
|
(a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted(Order 53, rule 4A);
(b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and
(c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)). |
|
Sent / Handed to the Applicant / the Applicant’s solicitors on 15 October 2018
NONIS PATTINI KUTTIGE SAMPATH THUSHARA
The Applicant |
|
Sent / Handed to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 15 October 2018:
The Petition Teams (Security Bureau) Putative Respondent
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
Putative Interested Party
Ref: (21) in USM7191/17/5/197/S142 Pt. II |
Form CALL-1
|