Vu Dac Hai v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

Case No.HCAL 3371/2019[2025] HKCFI 2954

Court

High Court CFI

Date15 Jul 2025

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 3371/2019

[2025] HKCFI 2954

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 3371 OF 2019

BETWEEN
	Vu Dac Hai	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board	Putative Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative Interested Party

Application for leave to apply for judicial review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Order 53, rule 3)

Following:

consideration of the documents only; or

consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the applicant or counsel in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Michael WONG:

1. On this court’s own motion, “Director of Immigration” be added as the putative interested party.

2. The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the applicant:

The Leave Application

1.By way of Form 86 dated 12 November 2019 and filed on 13 November 2019, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) in respect of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board ("the Board") dated 27 September 2019 (“the Board's Decision”). The Board’s Decision can be viewed in the following hyperlink:-

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2019/HCAL003371_2019_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

2.The Board found the applicant failed to substantiate that he qualified for non-refoulement protection on any of the applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism. Hence, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal/petition against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 28 July 2017 and confirmed the same.

Amendments

3.The applicant did not name any putative interested party in Form 86, when the Director should be so named.

4.Thus, on this court’s own motion, “Director of Immigration” is added as the putative interested party.

The applicant’s case

5.It is not necessary for this court to repeat the details of the applicant’s case here as the same were set out in the Board’s Decision, which can be viewed in the hyperlink above.

6.In sum, the applicant claimed for non-refoulement protection because he feared that, if refouled to Vietnam, his creditor would harm or kill him as he could not repay the loan to his creditor.

Death of the applicant

7.By a letter dated 19 May 2025, the Director informed this court that the applicant was certified dead on 28 April 2024 at Ruttonjee & Tang Shiu Kin Hospitals.

8.Although there was no death certificate produced by the Director, there is no reason why this court would not accept the Director’s information in this regard. Hence, this court accepts that the applicant had passed away.

Discussion

9.The applicant’s claim for non-refoulement protection is a personal claim and the cause of action would not survive upon his demise.

10.It is trite that if death terminates the cause of action, or the interest of the party, the action is at an end (see Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2025, paragraph 15/7/2).

11.Thus, the Leave Application is at an end upon the applicant’s death. It is no longer necessary for this court to deal with the merits of the Leave Application, which can simply be dismissed.

Conclusion

12.For reasons aforesaid, the Leave Application is dismissed.

Dated the 15^thday of July 2025

(Irene LEE)
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 his 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/Handed to the applicant/the applicant’s solicitors on: 15 July 2025 Applicant’s ref. no: Nil		Sent/Handed 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: 15 July 2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative respondent’s ref. no.: USM 8000/17/8/38/V1584 Director of Immigration Putative interested party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 841/17 (Formerly RBCZ 3172/14) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1