|
HCAL 2865/2019
[2025] HKCFI 2740
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2865 of 2019
| BETWEEN |
|
|
|
Fahad Al Reza |
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:
Application for Leave to apply for Judicial Review be stuck out.
Observations for the Applicant:
1.The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision dated 11 May 2015, which superseded the Notice of Decision by the Director dated 21 November 2014 and Notice of Further Decision dated 6 March 2017, is struck out for reasons below:
a. This application is a duplication of his previous application on the same facts of his claim in the action HCAL 76 of 2015, which was dismissed by the Judgment of the court dated 5 May 2017. In HCAL 76 of 2015, the applicant’s name adopted the abbreviation of FAR.
b. The Court of Appeal in Fabio Arlyn Timogan & Others v. Evan Ruth, Esq, Adjudicator of Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office and Director of Immigration [2020] HKCV 971, Hon Lam VP, Barma and Au JJA, 27 November 2020 held that such an application should be struck out:
“25. In Khan Kamran v Torture Claims Appeal Board, [2020] HKCA 380, the Court of Appeal held that it is an abuse of process for an Applicant to file a second application seeking judicial review in respect of the same Board decision …Such application is liable to be struck out. …”
c. Accordingly, this application is struck out.
Dated the 15th day of July 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 15/7/2025
Fahad Al Reza
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 15/7/2025
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 532/14/12/25/B95;
BOR 913/17/8/20/B97
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 1149/13 and RBCZ 9001479/16 (Formerly RBCZ 2284/09)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2)
|
Form CALL-1
|