CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1360 of 2021
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Sugiyanto |
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 (Non-refoulement Claims) Philips Wong:
1. Form 86 be amended as follows:- the Director of Immigration be named as the Putative Interested Party.
2. The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
1. By Form 86 filed on 28 September 2021, the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 26 August 2021.
2. In the Form, the Applicant named the “Claims Board Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office” as the proposed interested party. As it is trite that the Director of Immigration should be the proposed interested party in an application of this sort, I make an order to amend the Form on the Court’s own motion.
3. The Applicant requested an oral hearing for the Leave Application. The hearing took place on 12 January 2026 and the Applicant attended in person. At the hearing, the Applicant indicated that he would like to withdraw the Leave Application. He said he had already informed the Immigration Department in early January 2026.
4. I explained to the Applicant that his withdrawal would lead to the dismissal of the Leave Application. The Applicant indicated that he understood.
5. I am satisfied that the Applicant’s withdrawal request was made out of his own free will. As there is nothing outstanding in this Action, I dismiss the Leave Application (see Manik MD Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471, at §19).
Dated the 6th day of February 2026
| |
(Annson Cheung)
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 06/02/2026
Sugiyanto
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 06/02/2026
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 17086/20/7/30/I1858
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 170/20 (formerly as RBCZ 10139/20)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1