Sotingco Maricar Samson and Another v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 820/2019[2023] HKCFI 1420[1983] 1 WLR 1401[1958] 2 QB 78[1975] 1 QB 485[1989] 1 WLR 828[1965] 1 WLR 1025

Court

High Court CFI

Date31 May 2023

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 820/2019

[2023] HKCFI 1420

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 820 of 2019

BETWEEN
	Sotingco Maricar Samson	1^st Applicant
	Sotingco Harvey	2^nd Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board/	Putative
	Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office	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:

1.The 1^st applicant and the 2^nd applicant are mother and son. 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 14 March 2019 (the “Board’s Decision”), their appeal was dismissed.

2.The applicants filed Form 86 on 25 March 2019 for application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3.By affidavit dated 17 February 2023, the 1^st applicant applied to withdraw her application, saying that it is safe for her to return to her country and she wants to return home as soon as possible. Although the application was made in her own name, the application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision was made jointly with her son, who is a minor. Her application is, therefore, deemed to be made jointly herself and on behalf of her son.

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 31^st day of May 2023

(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 31/5/2023 Sotingco Maricar Samson and Sotingco Harvey 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 31/5/2023 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 11362-3/18/7/372/F704-5 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 438/18 (Formerly RBCZ/13087/15); QA T/C 433/18 (Formerly RBCZ/12305/16) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

Cites 1 case

Cases cited in this judgment

Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi

Cited by 16 cases

Other judgments that cite this case

Chan Siu Lun v. Hui Cho Yee and Another

Court of Appeal13 Oct 1999

Tse Ngan Heung v. The Ritz-carlton Ltd. and Others

Court of Appeal23 Nov 2001

Yip Kui t/a Tai Wo Trading Co. v. The Secretary for Transport

LDMR18 Sep 2002

Leung Kee Investment Co. Ltd. v. Secretary for Transport

LDMR