Alam Saiful v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 2933/2019[2025] HKCFI 1376

Court

High Court CFI

Date08 May 2025

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 2933/2019

[2025] HKCFI 1376

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2933 of 2019

BETWEEN
	Alam Saiful	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:

1.The applicant’s application for leave for judicial review of the Board’s Decision dated 2 October 2019, which allowed his appeal and reversed the Director’s Decision dated 19 September 2018 [107] – [128], is dismissed for the reason that this application has no practical purpose as the applicant is successful in his appeal and there is simply no reason for him to apply to this Court for a judicial review of the Board’s Decision. See The Court of Appeal in AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63 of 2015, Hon. Lam VP, Kwan and Poon JJA, 3 November 2015 held:

“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 (7^th ed) at §§18-054 to 18-056; Judicial Review by Supperstone, Goudie and Walker (5^th ed) at §18.18.1). …”

Dated the 8^th day of May 2025

(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 8/5/2025 Alam Saiful 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 8/5/2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 13697/18/10/39/B1581 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 2970/18 (formerly RBCZ/2001242/14) 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