|
HCAL 837/2024
[2025] HKCFI 692
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 837 of 2024
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Nguyen Thi Dung |
1st Applicant |
| |
Vu Hoang Hong Khue |
2nd 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 To:
1. Leave to withdraw the notice of application for leave to apply for Judicial Review (“Form 86”) be granted; and
2. Application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be withdrawn.
Observations for the Applicant:
Introduction
1. This is the Applicants’ application by Form 86 filed on 27 May 2024 for leave to apply for judicial review (the “leave application”) of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 13 July 2018 dismissing the 2nd Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 25 January 2017refusing the 2nd Applicant’s application for non-refoulement protection (the “Decision”).
2. The 1st Applicant is the mother of the 2nd Applicant and represented her in this application. Both of them were unrepresented. As the 2nd Applicant is a minor, the 1st Applicant who represented her was advised at the hearing of the requirements under Order 80 of the Rules of the High Court and to arrange legal representation for the 2nd Applicant, whether by private lawyer or by the Director of Legal Aid so that the interest specified to the 2nd Applicant may be fairly presented to the court. However, the 1st Applicant responded that she did not intend to proceed with the leave application. She said that her brother had helped her to solve part of her problem and there is no danger for the Applicants to return to Vietnam. She had applied to the Immigration Department for their voluntary repatriation. What she needed is time to make the arrangement. In effect, she was seeking to withdraw the leave application on behalf of the 2nd Applicant.
3. In answer to the Court’s further questions, the 1st Applicant said that the Applicants wish to return to their home country. The decision to withdraw the leave application and to return to Vietnam was made voluntarily without threat, pressure or inducement from anybody and with full understanding of the consequences of the withdrawal. She understood that if the withdrawal is approved, the decision of the Board dismissing the 2nd Applicant’s appeal against the Decision of the Director remains in force and the 2nd Applicant may not lodge a second appeal in respect of that Decision.
4. Having considered the nature of the leave application and the issues raised, the papers, and all the circumstances, and having examined the Decision with anxious scrutiny, the Court considered there is no merit in the intended leave application, that it is to the best interest of the 2nd Applicant that the leave application be withdrawn and that she would not suffer any prejudice as a result of the withdrawal. The Court therefore considered the absence of legal representation a mere irregularity and that the withdrawal of leave applications may be justly determined without the 2nd Applicant being legally represented. Hence, the Court granted leave for the Applicants to withdraw the leave application.
Dated the 18th day of February 2025
| |
( Seline Sze )
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 18/02/2025
Nguyen Thi Dung
Vu Hoang Hong Khue
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 18/02/2025
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 17820
USM 4089/16/7/59/V242
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 2618/15 (formerly RBCZ12806/15)
QA T/C 769/20 (formerly RBCZ 10669/20)
RBCZ 9000268/17(formerly Q T/C 2618/15; RBCZ12806/15)
L/M (28433) in ImmD RA 7/37/C (Formerly RBCZ9000268/17 and RBCZ12806/15)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|