Case Details

Citation

VAIRAVAPILLAI SELVARAJ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE, HCAL 2245/2020

Case Number

HCAL 2245/2020

Court

Court of First Instance

(CFI)

Decision Date

19 September 2024

Parties

Applicant(s):

Vairavapillai Selvaraj

Respondent(s):

Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

VAIRAVAPILLAI SELVARAJ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

[2024] HKCFI 2304

Court of First Instance19 September 2024

HCAL2245/2020 VAIRAVAPILLAI SELVARAJ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 2245/2020

[2024] HKCFI 2304

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2245 of 2020

BETWEEN
	Vairavapillai Selvaraj	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office	Putative 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;

consideration of documents only; or

consideration of documents and Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:

Leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1. The applicant applies for withdrawal of the application for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

2. There being no evidence that the application is made other than out of the applicant’s free will; and there being no outstanding matter in this action, the Court accedes to the applicant’s request and dismisses the application accordingly[1].

Dated the 19^th day of September 2024

(M.O. WONG)(Ms)
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 19/9/2024 Vairavapillai Selvaraj 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 19/9/2024 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: BOR 962/17/8/69/IN250 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: RBCL/421/07 (CZ) 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 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.”

VAIRAVAPILLAI SELVARAJ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

Court

Procedural posture

Issues

Holdings

Legal principles

Disposition

Key citations