BabelCite

Sipkaduwa Anthoni Sriyani Wimalasooriya v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 1331/2022[2026] HKCFI 1793
Court
High Court CFI
Date31 Mar 2026
Judge—
Case Document
100%

HCAL 1331/2022

[2026] HKCFI 1793

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1331 OF 2022

BETWEEN
  Sipkaduwa Anthoni Sriyani Wimalasooriya Applicant
  and  
  Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Putative
  Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office 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 the documents only;      or
   consideration of the documents and the Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Jeffrey Chau:

1.   Form 86 be amended, naming only the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office as the Putative Respondent and only the Director of Immigration as the Putative Interested Party.

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By a Form 86 filed on 25 November 2022 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) dated 1 November 2022 (the “TCAB Decision”)[1], which affirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) dated 23 November 2021 (the “DOI Decision”).

2.I amend the Form 86 on my own motion to name the TCAB as the putative respondent and the DOI as the interested party.

3.The Applicant requested a hearing of this application.  Before the hearing, by a letter dated 10 February 2026 to the Registrar and an ex-parte application by way of Affirmation filed herein on 10 February 2026, the Applicant informed the Court that she would like to withdraw her application as she would like to go back to her home country because his problem has been solved.  She was absent from the hearing.

4.I accede to the withdrawal.  As explained in Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471 at [19(1)], there was nothing outstanding in the action.  The application is therefore dismissed.

 

 

Dated the 31st day of March 2026

  (Annson CHEUNG)(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 31/3/2026


Sipkaduwa Anthoni Sriyani Wimalasooriya

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 31/3/2026

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 19408

Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 1079/21 (Formerly RBCZ 378/21)

Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2)


Form CALL-1

  

  

  

  

Cites 1 case

Cases cited in this judgment

Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi
[2022] HKCA 471 · Court of Appeal
01 Apr 2022
Full analysis