Ngo Van Dinh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 1040/2020[2021] HKCFI 2136

Court

High Court CFI

Date27 Jul 2021

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 1040/2020

[2021] HKCFI 2136

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1040 of 2020

BETWEEN

	Ngo Van Dinh	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.The applicant filed Form 86 dated 29 May 2020 for application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board. He is being detained by the Immigration Department.

2.By letter dated 6 July 2021, the Director informed this Court that the applicant had, by letter dated 30 June 2021, told the Director that he wanted to withdraw his Judicial Review application and the Immigration Department would be in a position to proceed with its deportation process as soon as possible.

3.It is clear that the applicant has no intention of proceeding with his 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, his application should be dismissed.

5.Accordingly, I accede to the applicant’s request and dismiss his application.

Dated the 27^th day of July 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 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 27 July 2021 Ngo Van Dinh 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 27 July 2021 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 12177/18/6/356/V2111 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1543/18 (Formerly RBCZ 3000601/14) 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