|
HCAL 3277/2019
[2026] HKCFI 4165
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 3277 of 2019
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Melati Ayu Aryati |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Torture Claims Appeal Board/ |
Putative |
| |
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office |
Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
Director of Immigration |
Putative |
| |
|
Interested Party |
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)
Following;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:
Leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
THE APPLICATION
1. The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 30 October 2019 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision), which dismissed her appeal against the Director’s Decision refusing her non‑refoulement claim as mentioned below.
2. The applicant asked for a hearing. However, before the case was set down for a hearing, the Court received a letter dated 12 June 2026 from the Immigration Department, informing us that the applicant’s application for entry for residence as a dependant in Hong Kong was approved by the Immigration Department on 15 March 2021.
3. In the circumstances, the applicant’s application for leave for judicial review of the Board’s Decision does not have any practical purpose.
4. The Court of Appeal in in AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63 of 2015, Hon. Lam VP, Kwan and Poon JJA, 3 November 2015 held:
“67. It is well established that the court may exercise discretion not to grant a remedy on judicial review if it would serve no practical purpose, where it may have become otiose or pointless to grant a remedy because the relevant detriment to the applicant has been removed (De Smith’s Judicial Review (7th ed) at §§18-054 to 18-056; Judicial Review by Supperstone, Goudie and Walker (5th ed) at §18.18.1). …”
5. The Court will therefore exercise its discretion not to grant a remedy on this application. By parity of reason, resent situation is equivalent to withdrawal of her application. Since there is nothing outstanding in this action, the application should be dismissed for case management purpose[1].
6. I dismiss the application.
Dated the 29th day of July 2026
| |
(Allen LEE)
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 their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence
Notes for the Applicant:
If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s 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 to the Applicant
on 29/7/2026
Melati Ayu Aryati
Applicant’s ref. no:
Nil. |
|
Sent 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 29/7/2026
Torture Claims Appeal Board/
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 16112/19/7/78/I1726
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 474/19 (Formerly RBCZ 113/19) (T2I99)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
[1] Re Manik MD Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471, Hon Chu and Barma JJA, 1 April 2022 at §19
“(1) The applicant on his own motion applied to the Court to withdraw his application for leave to apply for judicial review. The Judge acceded to his application, whereupon there was nothing outstanding in the action. The Judge was correct to conclude the action by ordering a dismissal of the application instead of leaving the action at large.”
|