Saeed Naeema and Others v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 520/2019[2021] HKCFI 1629

Court

High Court CFI

Date09 Jun 2021

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 520/2019

[2021] HKCFI 1629

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 520 of 2019

BETWEEN

	Saeed Naeema	1^st Applicant
	Bajwa Zakaria Zia	2^nd Applicant
	Zia Namra	3^rd 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;

consideration of documents only; or

consideration of documents and Applicant being absent in open court;

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

Leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

THE APPLICATION

1.This is the 1^st and the 3^rd applicants’ application for withdrawal of their respective claims. The 2^nd applicant had already withdrawn his claim and his application had been approved by another court. The applicants here are mother and daughter.

2.The applicants filed Form 86 dated 20 February 2019 for application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decisions respectively dated 31 January 2019 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”)

3.By letter received by the court on 21 May 2021, the applicants applied to this Court to withdraw their application for the reason that they wished to go back to their home country.

4.It is clear that the applicants have no intention of proceeding with their application. The Court of Appeal in AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63 of 2015, 3 November 2015 said:

“67. It is well established that the court may exercise discretion not to grant a remedy on judicial review if it would serve no practical purpose, where it may have become otiose or pointless to grant a remedy because the relevant detriment to the applicant has been removed (De Smith’s Judicial Review (7th ed) at §§18-054 to 18-056; Judicial Review by Supperstone, Goudie and Walker (5th ed) at §18.18.1)….”

4. As such, their application should be dismissed.

5.Accordingly, I accede to the applicants’ request and dismiss their application.

Dated the 9^th day of June 2021

	(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 9 June 2021 Saeed Naeema, Bajwa Zakaria Zia and Zia Namra 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 9 June 2021 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: - Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 3350-3352/16 (Formerly RBCZ 3000342-3000344/14)(T7S79) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

Cites 1 case

Cases cited in this judgment

Aw v. Director of Immigration and Another