|
HCAL 858/2022
[2025] HKCFI 4755
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST
NO 858 OF 2022
________________________
BETWEEN
|
Susanto Agus |
Applicant |
|
and |
|
|
Torture Claims Appeal Board /
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office |
Putative Respondent |
|
and |
|
|
Director of Immigration |
Putative Interested Party |
________________________
| Before: |
Deputy High Court Judge To in Chambers |
| Date of Hearing: |
15 September 2025 |
| Date of Decision: |
10 October 2025 |
________________________
D E C I S I O N
________________________
Introduction
1. This is the disposal of the Applicant’s summons filed on 18 August 2025 (the “Summons”). The Applicant had been granted leave to apply for judicial review by this Court's order dated 27 May 2025 as amended on 28 May 2025 (the "Said Order"). Due to his misunderstanding of the Said Order, he applied by summons filed on 11 June 2025 to appeal the Said Order out of time. His application was heard at a hearing on 4 August 2025. After having been explained about his misunderstanding, he withdrew his application. As he had failed to issue the originating summons to apply for judicial review pursuant to the leave granted to him under the Said Order, the Court granted him extension of time to issue the originating summons and to serve a copy of the Said Order on the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office and the Director of Immigration by 4 pm on 18 August 2025. The above directions had been repeatedly and carefully explained to him by the court interpreter.
2. The Applicant did not comply with those directions. Instead, on 18 August 2025, he filed a summons asserting:
“I got the High Court Judgment on 06/08/25. I could not arrange money. So I failed to submit my application. Please consider one day only.”
His summons is not entirely comprehensible. Assuming that he had again misunderstood the directions, the Court scheduled a hearing on 15 September 2025 to deal with his summons.
3. Despite the notice of hearing had been served on him and a court staff had successfully contacted him to remind him of the hearing, he did not attend. Accordingly, his summons was dismissed for want of prosecution.
|
( Anthony To ) |
|
Deputy High Court Judge |
The Applicant was unrepresented and did not appear.
|