|
HCAL 1936/2018
[2019] HKCFI 3076
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1936 of 2018
BETWEEN
|
Le Thi Vinh |
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;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:
Application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
THE APPLICATION
1. This is the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board’s Decision”).
2. Pursuant to Order 20, rule 8 and Order 53, rule 3(6) of the Rules of the High Court, the Court, on its own motion, amended Form 86 by adding the Director as interested party.
3. The applicant is a Vietnamese national. She came to Hong Kong on 14 February 2015 illegally and was arrested on 17 February 2015. She lodged her non-refoulement claim on 17 March 2015.
4. The Director rejected her claim and she appealed to the Board. The Board refused her appeal.
5. The applicant filed Form 86 dated 14 September 2018 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. The Court has yet fixed a hearing date for her application.
6. By an affirmation dated 29 October 2019, the applicant applied to withdraw her claim as she said that her debt in Vietnam had been solved.
7. The Court advised her that she had to confirm in writing that she agreed that the Court would deal with her application on paper and her application be dismissed.
8. By another letter dated 12 November 2019, she confirmed that she agreed that her application be dealt with on paper and that the Court might dismiss her application.
9. In the circumstances, it is clear that the applicant has no intention of proceeding with her application.
CONCLUSION
10. Accordingly, I dismiss her application.
Dated the 20th day of December 2019
| |
(Mike Mak) |
| |
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 20/12/2019
Le Thi Vinh
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 20/12/2019
Torture Claims Appeal Board/
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 4501/16/8/220/V364
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1427/16 & INCZ/9002855/17(formerly RBCZ/11047/15)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Office
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|