|
HCAL 334/2021
[2022] HKCFI 3493
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 334 of 2021
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Das Franklin Paul |
1st Applicant |
| |
Tambe Reshma Suresh |
2nd Applicant |
| |
Singh Neha Karan |
3rd 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:
Leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
1. The 1st applicant is the husband, the 2nd applicant, the wife and the 3rd applicant the daughter, who was born on 20 October 2001 and is now aged 21. 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 8 September 2020 (the “Board’s Decision”), their appeal was dismissed.
2. The applicants filed Form 86 dated 11 March 2021 for application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
3. By affidavit filed on 17 August 2022, the 1st applicant, on behalf of himself and other applicants, applied to withdraw their application, saying “I wish to withdraw and do not want to proceed with case and request you to close our file in the High Court.”
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 22nd day of November 2022
| |
(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 Applicants:
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 Applicants
on 22 November 2022
Das Franklin Paul,
Tambe Reshma Suresh
and
Singh Neha Karan
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 22 November 2022
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 11018/18/4/28/IN2133;
USM 11019/18/4/29/IN2134;
USM 11020/18/4/30/IN2135
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: RBCL/2236/16 (CZ);
RBCL/2235/16 (CZ);
RBCL/2237/16 (CZ)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|