Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL2573/2018

[2019] HKCFI 1272

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2573 of 2018

BETWEEN

	Bal Swaran Singh	Applicant
	and
	Wesley Wong , ESQ	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;

consideration of the documents only; or

consideration of the documents and the Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:

1. leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed for want of prosecution; and

2. there be liberty to apply to set aside this order under Order 32, rule 6 of the Rules of the High Court.

Observations for the Applicant (Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung):

1.By Form 86 under Order 53, rule 3(2) of the Rules of the High Court, the applicant applied for leave for judicial review of the decision of the Adjudicator of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office.

2.The applicant requested hearing of his application by the Court.

3.The application was set down for hearing on 15 May 2019 at 10am.

4.The applicant was absent at the hearing.

5.The Court of Appeal in Re: Ahmed Syed Rafiq [2018] HKCA 178 (CACV 272/2017) 26 March 2018 held that for active case management, the Court has power to strike out the application for want of prosecution. See paragraph 12:

‘12. In Choy Bing Wing v President of Hong Kong Institute of Engineers (HKIE) (unreported, CACV 172/2013, 19 February 2014), it was held at [15] that “The court’s duty on active case management is equally applicable to appeals as in first instance cases. The expeditious and efficient disposal of appeals is important in the proper administration of justice”. The Court has power to strike out an appeal on the ground of abuse of process which includes a striking out for want of prosecution ([18]).’

6.Accordingly, the applicant’s application is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Dated the 15^th day of May 2019

(Henry Ng)
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 15/5/2019
Bal Swaran Singh

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 15/5/2019

Wesley Wong , ESQ
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
BOR 704/17/6/21/IN185

Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 456/14 & RBCZ 9001637/17 (formerly RBCZ/117/14)

Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Office
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

Cites 3 cases

Cases cited in this judgment