Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL2524/2018

[2019] HKCFI 1834

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2524 of 2018

BETWEEN

	Mukhtar Wilson	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office	1^st Putative Respondent
	Director of Immigration	2^nd Putative Respondent

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 decisions of the Director of Immigration and 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 19 July 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 19^th day of July 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 19/7/2019 Mukhtar Wilson 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 19/7/2019 Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office 1^st Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 1992/15/8/13/P570 Director of Immigration 2^nd Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: QA T/C 324/10 Pt.3 & RBCZ 9000880/16 (formerly RBCZ 567/07) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Office (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)