|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Sipkaduwa Anthoni Sriyani Wimalasooriya |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Torture Claims Appeal Board/ |
Putative |
| |
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office |
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) Jeffrey Chau:
1. Form 86 be amended, naming only the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office as the Putative Respondent and only the Director of Immigration as the Putative Interested Party.
2. The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
Introduction
1. By a Form 86 filed on 25 November 2022 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) dated 1 November 2022 (the “TCAB Decision”)[1], which affirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) dated 23 November 2021 (the “DOI Decision”).
2. I amend the Form 86 on my own motion to name the TCAB as the putative respondent and the DOI as the interested party.
3. The Applicant requested a hearing of this application. Before the hearing, by a letter dated 10 February 2026 to the Registrar and an ex-parte application by way of Affirmation filed herein on 10 February 2026, the Applicant informed the Court that she would like to withdraw her application as she would like to go back to her home country because his problem has been solved. She was absent from the hearing.
4. I accede to the withdrawal. As explained in Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471 at [19(1)], there was nothing outstanding in the action. The application is therefore dismissed.
Dated the 31st day of March 2026
| |
(Annson CHEUNG)(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 31/3/2026
Sipkaduwa Anthoni Sriyani Wimalasooriya
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 31/3/2026
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 19408
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 1079/21 (Formerly RBCZ 378/21)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1