|
HCAL 820/2019
[2023] HKCFI 1420
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 820 of 2019
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Sotingco Maricar Samson |
1st Applicant |
| |
Sotingco Harvey |
2nd 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 K.W. Lung:
Leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
1. The 1st applicant and the 2nd applicant are mother and son. They are illegal immigrants by staying in Hong Kong without the permission of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). They lodged non-refoulement claim jointly with the Immigration Department and was rejected by the Director. They jointly appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”) and, by the Board’s Decision dated 14 March 2019 (the “Board’s Decision”), their appeal was dismissed.
2. The applicants filed Form 86 on 25 March 2019 for application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
3. By affidavit dated 17 February 2023, the 1st applicant applied to withdraw her application, saying that it is safe for her to return to her country and she wants to return home as soon as possible. Although the application was made in her own name, the application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision was made jointly with her son, who is a minor. Her application is, therefore, deemed to be made jointly herself and on behalf of her son.
4. In accordance with the Court of Appeal in Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471 at §19:
“(1) The applicant on his own motion applied to the Court to withdraw his application for leave to apply for judicial review. The Judge acceded to his application, whereupon there was nothing outstanding in the action. The Judge was correct to conclude the action by ordering a dismissal of the application instead of leaving the action at large.”
5. The applicants’ joint application is therefore dismissed.
Dated the 31st day of May 2023
| |
(M.O. WONG)(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 31/5/2023
Sotingco Maricar Samson
and
Sotingco Harvey
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 31/5/2023
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 11362-3/18/7/372/F704-5
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 438/18 (Formerly RBCZ/13087/15);
QA T/C 433/18 (Formerly RBCZ/12305/16)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|