Case Details

Citation

DANG VAN TANG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE, HCAL 1134/2023

Case Number

HCAL 1134/2023

Court

Court of First Instance

(CFI)

Decision Date

28 January 2026

Parties

Applicant(s):

Dang Van Tang, consideration of documents and being absent in open court, Notes for the : If leave has been granted, the or the ’s solicitors must, a) serve on the 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 proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5))

Respondent(s):

Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Judges

Deputy High Court JudgeK. W. Lung

DANG VAN TANG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

[2026] HKCFI 523

Court of First Instance28 January 2026

Judges:Deputy High Court JudgeK. W. Lung

HCAL1134/2023 DANG VAN TANG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 1134/2023

[2026] HKCFI 523

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1134 of 2023

BETWEEN
	Dang Van Tang	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.

Observation for the Applicant:

1. The applicant applies for withdrawal of the application for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. As such, the applicant’s application is devoid of merit.

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 28^th day of January 2026

(Allen LEE)
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 28/1/2026 Dang Van Tang 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 28/1/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 20849 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: VRD/523/1/21(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.”

Citation

Court

Procedural posture

Issues

Holdings

Legal principles

Disposition

Key citations

Case Details

Citation

DANG VAN TANG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE, HCAL 1134/2023

Case Number

HCAL 1134/2023

Court

Court of First Instance

(CFI)

Decision Date

28 January 2026

Parties

Applicant(s):

Respondent(s):

Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Judges

Deputy High Court JudgeK. W. Lung