|
HCAL 641/2026
[2026] HKCFI 4400
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 641 OF 2026
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Vu Thanh Thuy |
1st Applicant |
| |
Trinh Ngoc Mai (a minor) |
2nd Applicant |
| |
by Vu Thanh Thuy, her next friend |
|
| |
and |
|
| |
Torture Claims Appeal Board |
Putative |
| |
|
Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
Director of Immigration |
Putative |
| |
|
Interested Party |
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Order 53, rule 3)
Following:
Order by Deputy High Court Judge Michael WONG:
1. On this court’s own motion, the 2nd applicant’s name be amended to “Trinh Ngoc Mai (a minor) by Vu Thanh Thuy, her next friend”, the name of the putative respondent be amended to “Torture Claims Appeal Board”, and “Director of Immigration” be added as the putative interested party.
2. The 1st applicant’s application to withdraw the application for leave to apply for judicial review be refused.
3. The 1st applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
4. The 2nd applicant’s application to withdraw the application for leave to apply for judicial review made by her father Trinh The Cong on her behalf be refused.
5. The 2nd applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be fixed for an oral hearing pending the outcome of her legal aid application.
Observations for the applicants:
The Leave Application
1. By way of Form 86 dated and filed on 26 March 2026, the 1st and 2nd applicants applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) in respect of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 27 June 2023 (“the Board’s Decision”).
2. However, the Board’s Decision concerned only the 2nd applicant, not the 1st applicant. As shown in the Board’s Decision, the 1st applicant was the 2nd applicant’s mother and was appearing before the Board on behalf of the 2nd applicant, who was a minor born in Hong Kong on 1 October 2019. The 1st applicant herself was not the appellant/petitioner before the Board.
3. The Board found that the 2nd applicant’s non-refoulement claim failed on all the applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism. Hence, the Board rejected the 2nd applicant’s appeal/petition against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 7 September 2020 and confirmed the same.
Amendments
4. In Form 86, the 2nd applicant’s name was stated as “TRINH NGOC MAI” and the 1st applicant signed the form on behalf of both herself and the 2nd applicant. It is clear that the 1st applicant was acting on behalf of the 2nd applicant in the Leave Application. Thus, the 2nd applicant’s name should be amended to “Trinh Ngoc Mai (a minor) by Vu Thanh Thuy, her next friend”.
5. The applicants named the Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office and the Director as the putative respondents and did not name any putative interested party. In fact, only the Board should be the putative respondent, and the Director should be the putative interested party.
6. The Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office is just an office providing administrative and secretariat support to the adjudicators of the Board and should not be named as a putative respondent at all.
7. Thus, on this court’s own motion, the 2nd applicant’s name is amended to “Trinh Ngoc Mai (a minor) by Vu Thanh Thuy, her next friend”, the name of the putative respondent is amended to “Torture Claims Appeal Board”, and “Director of Immigration” is added as the putative interested party.
Withdrawal of the Leave Application
8. Before the Leave Application was dealt with, the Director informed this court by two separate letters both dated 21 July 2026 that the 1st and 2nd applicants applied to withdraw the Leave Application by their individual letters both dated 16 July 2026.
9. However, the 2nd applicant’s withdrawal letter was not signed by the 1st applicant, but by her father, Trinh The Cong, on her behalf.
Discussion
10. As the Leave Application in respect of the 2nd applicant was taken out by the 1st applicant on her behalf, it is not right for the 2nd applicant’s father to withdraw the Leave Application on her behalf.
11. Moreover, according to the Memorandum of Notification of an Application for Legal Aid dated 15 July 2026, the 1st applicant has made an application for legal aid on behalf of the 2nd applicant. Thus, it is not right for this court to deal with the Leave Application in respect of the 2nd applicant at this stage before her legal aid application has been disposed of.
12. The 2nd applicant’s withdrawal application is therefore refused. The Leave Application in respect of the 2nd applicant is to be fixed for oral hearing pending the outcome of her legal aid application.
13. As to the 1st applicant’s withdrawal application, it is also not right for this court to allow her withdrawal. The 1st applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of the Board’s Decision is simply misconceived, as the Board’s Decision was not made in respect of the 1st applicant at all.
14. In fact, there was another decision made by the Board on 18 November 2019 in respect of the 1st applicant and her another daughter, Trinh Ngoc Han. Their application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of that decision was dealt with in HCAL 3590/2019 and was dismissed by this court on 16 February 2026.
15. Thus, there was absolutely no reason for the 1st applicant to make another application for herself in the Leave Application. Such an application is an abuse of court process and ought to be dismissed.
Conclusion
16. For reasons aforesaid, the 1st and 2nd applicants’ application to withdraw the Leave Application are both refused, the Leave Application in respect of the 1st applicant is dismissed and the Leave Application in respect of the 2nd applicant is to be fixed for an oral hearing pending the outcome of her legal aid application.
Dated the 5th day of August 2026
| |
( Gladys 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 his 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/Handed to the applicants/the applicants’ solicitors on: 05/08/2026
Applicants’ ref. no:
Nil |
|
Sent/Handed 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: 05/08/2026
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 17216
Director of Immigration
Putative interested party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 374/20 (Formerly RBCZ 10306/20)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|