|
HCAL 3130/2019
[2020] HKCFI 1123
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 3130 of 2019
BETWEEN
|
Chanderkasan Kogilavani |
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 K.W. Lung:
Application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
1. This is the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 11 October 2019 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board’s Decision”).
2. Pursuant to Order 20, rule 8 and Order 53, rule 3(6) of the Rules of the High Court, Form 86 was amended by replacing the petition teams with the Board as proposed respondent and by replacing the Board with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) as interested party.
3. The applicant is a Sri Lankan national. On 13 July 2017, she came to Hong Kong as a domestic helper. After she had finished her contract, she overstayed. On 5 March 2018, she surrendered to the Immigration Department and lodged her non-refoulement claim on 8 May 2018.
4. The Director rejected her claim and she appealed to the Board. The Board refused her appeal.
5. The applicant filed Form 86 on 22 October 2019 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. She requested a hearing for her application.
6. The applicant filed an affirmation on 11 March 2020 and applied to withdraw her application for the reason that she wanted to go back to her own country.
7. In the circumstances, it is clear that the applicant has no intention of proceeding with her application, which should be dismissed.
CONCLUSION
8. Accordingly, I accede to her request and dismiss her application.
Dated the 11th day of June 2020
| |
(Mike Mak) |
| |
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 11/6/2020
Chanderkasan Kogilavani
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 11/6/2020
Torture Claims Appeal Board/
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 14261/18/11/104/S325
Director of Immigration
(Putative Interested Party)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Office
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|