|
HCAL 173/2020
[2021] HKCFI 2672
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 173 of 2020
BETWEEN
|
Mohammed Khan Shamim |
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:
Leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
1. The applicant filed Form 86 on 16 January 2020 for application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision of the Torture Claim Appeal Board dated 20 May 2019.
2. By letter dated 23 August 2021, the applicant applied to the Court that he wanted to withdraw his application for judicial review for the reason that he wanted to go back to India as his problem had been solved.
3. It is clear that the applicant has no intention of proceeding with his application. The Court of Appeal in AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63 of 2015, 3 November 2015 said:
“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)….”
4. As such, his application should be dismissed.
5. Accordingly, I accede to the applicant’s request and dismiss his application.
Dated the 9th day of September 2021
| |
(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 9 September 2021
Mohammed Khan Shamim
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 9 September 2021
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
-
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: RBCL/8000/2007
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|