|
HCAL 1328/2019
[2026] HKCFI 4475
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST
NO. 1328 OF 2019
_____________
BETWEEN
|
Long Quy Thoang |
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 K.W. Lung in Chambers |
| Date of Decision: |
19 August 2026 |
_____________
DECISION
_____________
1. The applicant is an illegal immigrant by staying in Hong Kong without permission and he lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). The Director rejected his application and he appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”). Having considered his evidence, the Board, by its Decision dated 29 August 2018 (“the Board’s Decision”), rejected his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.
2. Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(2) of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”), the applicant filed Form No. 86 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
3. By Form CALL-1 dated 29 April 2024 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court granted leave to the applicant to issue the Originating Summons to apply for leave for judicial review of the Board’s Decision within 14 days from the date of the Order dated 29 April 2024 (“the Court Order”).
4. The Court’s decision was sent to the applicant on 29 April 2024 at his last known address without being returned from the Post Office. He is deemed to receive the Court’s decision[1].
5. The time for issuing the Originating Summons expired on 13 May 2024[2].
6. However, the applicant asked for a copy of the Court’s decision to be sent to him at Castle Peak Bay Immigration Centre. By letter dated 8 June 2026, a copy of the Court’s decision was sent to him.
7. Up to date, the applicant has not filed the originating summons in compliance with the Court’s Order.
8. Pursuant to Order 1B, rule 1(2)(a) of the Rules of the High Court, this Court, for the purpose of case management, will make an “unless order” below.
9. Pursuant to Order 42, rule 2(1) of the Rules of the Hight Court and Practice Direction – 16.5, this Court now makes an “Unless Order” in terms as follows:
“Unless the applicant issues an originating summons for judicial review of the Board’s Decision within 14 days of the service of this Order, the applicant’s application shall be deemed to have been abandoned, the leave granted shall be set aside and the application be dismissed forthwith without further order.”
10. A copy of this Order shall be delivered to the Department of Justice for notice and appropriate action to be taken.
| |
(K.W. Lung) |
| |
Deputy High Court Judge |
The applicant was unrepresented.
[1] Re: Ravinder Singh [2023] HKCA 604, Hon Poon CJHC and Cheung JA, 28 April 2023
“17. The applicant had not filed any notice of change of address for service to notify of any changes in his address. According to the Court’s record, the Court’s decision was sent to the applicant’s last known address on 31 March 2022 by ordinary post. He was deemed to receive the same on the next following day, not being a specified day such as a Saturday or a general holiday. He was therefore deemed to have received the Court’s decision on 1 April 2022. ”
[2] The public holidays are included in the 14-day period as per Order 2(5) of the Rules of the High Court
2. O. 53, r. 4
(4) Where an application for leave is refused by a judge or granted on terms, the applicant may appeal against the judge’s order to the Court of Appeal within 14 days after such order.
Reckoning periods of time (O. 3, r. 2)
(5) Where, apart from this paragraph, the period in question, being a period of 7 days or less, would include a specified day, that day shall be excluded.
(35 of 1998 s. 5; 18 of 2016 s. 5)
|