Case Document

100%

HCAL 1982/2023

[2025] HKCFI 5701

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1982 OF 2023

BETWEEN
	Rita	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 in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Michael WONG:

1.  On this court’s own motion, the name of the putative respondent be amended to “Torture Claims Appeal Board” and the name of the putative interested party be amended to “Director of Immigration”.

2.  The applicant’s application to withdraw the application for leave to apply for judicial review be refused.

3.  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 and filed on 6 November 2023, 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 13 January 2023 (“the Board’s Decision”).

2.The Board considered that the applicant’s non-refoulement claim failed on all the applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism. Hence, the Board affirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 23 May 2022, which rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

Amendments

3.In Form 86, the applicant named both the Board and the Director as the putative respondents, when only the Board should be the putative respondent. The applicant also named the Board as the putative interested party, when the putative interested party should be the Director.

4.Thus, this court makes an order on its own motion to amend the name of the putative respondent to “Torture Claims Appeal Board” and the name of the putative interested party to “Director of Immigration”.

Late application

5.By virtue of Order 53, rule 4(1) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A, the applicant had to make the Leave Application within 3 months when the grounds for the Leave Application first arose, ie when the Board’s Decision was made.

6.However, the applicant filed Form 86 on 6 November 2023, which was more than 9 months after the Board’s Decision (made on 13 January 2023). The applicant was hence late for more than 6 months in making the Leave Application.

7.This court has to consider whether the time for the applicant to make the Leave Application should be extended taking into account of the criteria laid down in AW v Director of Immigration [2016] 2 HKC 393, which are:

(i)  the length of the delay;

(ii)  the reason for the delay;

(iii)  the merits of the intended application; and

(iv) any prejudice to the putative respondent and to public administration.

8.The applicant did not make any application for extension of time and provided no explanation for the delay in making the Leave Application.

9.A delay of more than 6 months is substantial, and there is no justification for the delay at all. Moreover, as discussed below, the applicant wanted to withdraw the Leave Application and she confirmed that it was safe for her to return to her home country. Thus, there is no longer any basis for her to continue with the non-refoulement claim and the intended judicial review serves no practical purpose.

10.Having considered the above criteria, this court is not prepared to grant any extension of time to the applicant to file the Leave Application, even if an application for extension of time was made. The Leave Application can therefore be dismissed on the ground of being made out of time alone.

The applicant’s case

11.The applicant claimed for non-refoulement protection because if refouled to Indonesia, she would be harmed or killed by a moneylender from whom her ex-husband had borrowed some money but was unable to repay.

Withdrawal of the Leave Application

12.By a letter dated 4 September 2025, the Director informed this court that the applicant had written a letter dated 29 August 2025 to withdraw the Leave Application. In the applicant’s said letter, she stated that she wanted to withdraw the Leave Application as she wanted to go back to her home country as soon as possible. She also stated that her problem in her home country was solved and it was safe for her to go back home.

13.There is no evidence to show that the applicant made the above withdrawal application other than out of her own volition. With the withdrawal application, it is clear that the applicant no longer wishes to proceed with the Leave Application.

14.However, the Court of Appeal had held in Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471 that:-

“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.”

15.Thus, it is not right to leave the action at large by granting leave to withdraw to the applicant. This court will proceed to deal with the Leave Application.

Discussion

16.It is not necessary for this court to discuss the merits of the intended judicial review any more, as the applicant had confirmed that it was safe for her to go back to her home country. In other words, the basis of the applicant’s non-refoulement claim no longer exists.

17.It is clear that the applicant no longer needs non-refoulement protection and the intended judicial review serves no practical purpose.

18.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 (see AW v Director of Immigration and William Lam, CACV 63 of 2015).

19.Even assuming that there were errors of law, procedural unfairness, or irrationality in the Board’s Decision and the case were remitted to the Board for reconsideration, there would simply be no more basis for the applicant to claim non-refoulement protection as it was no longer unsafe for her to return to her own country. The Board should assess the risk of the applicant at the time of the proceedings, taking account of information that has come to light to ensure that it is able to make a “full and up-to-date assessment” of the current situation (see Ubamaka Edward Wilson v Secretary for Security and Another (2012) 15 HKCFAR 743).

20.It is therefore otiose and pointless to grant leave to the applicant to proceed with the intended judicial review even if there were merits in it. Thus, the Leave Application ought to be dismissed.

Conclusion

21.For reasons aforesaid, the application to withdraw the Leave Application is refused and the Leave Application is dismissed.

Dated the 25^th day of November 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: 25 November 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: 25 November 2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative respondent’s ref. no.: USM 20487 Director of Immigration Putative interested party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 224/22 (formerly RBCZ 5000096/22) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)