|
HCAL 1810/2019
[2024] HKCFI 743
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1810 of 2019
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Hardeep Singh |
1st Applicant |
| |
Balwinder Kaur |
2nd Applicant |
| |
Harkirat Singh |
3rd 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 Applicants:
1. The 1st applicant and the 2nd applicant are husband and wife and the 3rd applicant is their son, aged 12. They are illegal immigrants by staying in Hong Kong without the permission of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). They lodged non-refoulement claim jointly with the Immigration Department and was rejected by the Director. They jointly appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”) and, by the Board’s Decision, their appeal was dismissed.
2. The applicants filed Form 86 on 28 June 2019 for application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
3. By affirmation filed on 15 January 2024, the 1st applicant and 2nd applicant, on behalf of themselves and their son, applied to close [withdraw] their application, saying that it is safe for them to return and they want to return to their home country as soon as possible.
4. There is nothing outstanding in this action.
5. In accordance with the Court of Appeal in 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.”
6. The applicants’ joint application is therefore dismissed.
Dated the 21st day of March 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 Applicants:
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 Applicants
on 21/3/2024
Hardeep Singh,
Balwinder Kaur
and
Harkirat Singh
Applicants’ 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 21/3/2024
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 9828/18/1/101/IN1851;
USM 9829/18/1/102/IN1852;
USM 9830/18/1/103/IN1853;
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 2914-2916/17 (formerly RBCZ 13588-13590/16)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|