|
HCAL 2747/2019 and HCAL 109/2025
(Heard together)
[2025] HKCFI 3514
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2747 of 2019
| BETWEEN |
|
|
|
Akter Mosammat Rozina |
1st Applicant |
|
Akter Anika |
2nd Applicant |
|
and
|
|
|
Torture Claims Appeal Board /
Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
Putative Respondent |
|
and
|
|
|
Director of Immigration
|
Putative Interested Party |
_____________
AND
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 109 of 2025
| BETWEEN |
|
|
| |
Akter Mosammat Rozina |
1st Applicant |
| |
Akter Ikra |
3rd 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 1st Applicant being present and 2nd and 3rd Applicants being absent in open court; |
Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:
1. Leave for the applicant to apply for Judicial Review of the Board’s Decisions dated 16 September 2019 and 25 November 2024 be granted;
2. The applicants shall issue the originating summons for hearing within 14 days from the date of this Order, pursuant to Order 53, rule 5 of the Rules of the High Court.
3. A copy of this Order be served on the Director of Justice, who shall work out the proper directions for the judicial review hearing with the applicants.
4. Liberty to apply.
Observations for the Applicants:
1.The Court ordered that these 2 actions are to be heard together because the 1st applicant is the mother of the 2nd and the 3rd applicants. The 2nd and the 3rd applicants lodged their applications through the 1st applicant as their guardian ad litem and their claims rely upon the facts of the 1st applicant.
2.Leave is granted to the applicants to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decisions respectively dated 16 September 2019 and 25 November 2024 for the reasons below:
a. It is obvious that the 2nd applicant and the 3rd applicant were not legally represented before the Board differently constituted,
b. In respect of HCAL 2747 of 2019, the Board did not hold an oral hearing for the applicants, thus denying an opportunity for the 1st applicant to submit child specific issues relating to the 2nd applicant for its consideration. It also did not consider the 2nd applicant’s claim separately, particularly in relation to the minor specific issues, contrary to the directions of the Court of Appeal[1].
c. In respect of HCAL 109 of 2025, the Board only considered the mother’s case, without separate consideration of the child specific issue for the 3rd applicant. Similarly, it had failed to follow the directions of the Court of Appeal in the above-mentioned case.
3.The applicants shall issue the originating summons for hearing within 14 days from the date of this Order, pursuant to Order 53, rule 5 of the Rules of the High Court.
4.A copy of this Order be served on DoJ to work out the proper directions for the judicial review hearing with the applicants.
5.Liberty to apply.
Dated the 2nd day of September 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 Applicants:
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 Applicants
on 2/9/2025
Akter Mosammat Rozina,
Akter Ikra
and
Akter Anika
Applicants’ 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 2/9/2025
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 15547/19/2/66/B1983;
USM 15548/19/2/67/B1984;
USM 20549
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 3624/18 (formerly RBCZ 11595/17);
QAT/C 5258/18 (formerly RBCZ 10091/18)[T1S130]
QA T/C 134/22 (formerly RBCZ 5000456/21)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2)
|
Form CALL-1
[1] 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, paragraphs 33 & 34
|