BabelCite

Sreethongbai Chotinapha Alias Sreetongbai Chotinarpar Alias Sreetongbai Chotinapar v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 1567/2021[2026] HKCFI 2501
Court
High Court CFI
Date06 May 2026
Judge—
Case Document
100%

HCAL 1567/2021

[2026] HKCFI 2501

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1567 of 2021

BETWEEN
  Sreethongbai Chotinapha
alias Sreetongbai Chotinarpar
alias Sreetongbai Chotinapar		 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 documents only;          or
   consideration of documents and Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:

1.  Leave to apply for judicial review be granted;

2.  The applicant 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 DoJ to work out the proper directions for the hearing with the applicant; and

4.  Liberty to apply.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.Leave is granted to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision dated 24 April 2019 for the reason that the Board did not consider the merit of the case, contrary to the decision of the Court of Appeal[1]. For details of the Board’s Decision, see hyperlink. https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2021/HCAL001567_2021_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

2.This Court notes that effective on 1 August 2021, Section 37TZ of the Ordinance as revised for late filing of the notice of appeal applied. Under this revised version, the Board is not required to consider the merits of the applicant’s case before dismissing the appeal. However, the Board’s Decision was issued before this new legislation, which does not provide for retrospective effect.

3.The applicant 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 the DoJ to work out the proper directions for the judicial review hearing with the applicant.

5.Liberty to apply.

Dated the 6th day of May 2026

  (Allen 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 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 6/5/2026

Sreethongbai Chotinapha
alias Sreetongbai Chotinarpar
alias Sreetongbai Chotinapar

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 6/5/2026

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 11450/18/5/35/TH32

Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 795/18 (Formerly RBCZ 12199/15)

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


Form CALL-1


[1]  Re Garcoa Demmos Casemas [2025] HKCA 303, Hon Chu VP and Barnes J, 8 April 2025

“15. This Court has held that regardless of procedural breaches committed by the applicant and the lack of adequate explanation therefor, the Board, in exercising its discretion on whether to allow late filing of a NOA, is obliged to consider the merits of the applicant’s claim: Re Khan Kamal Ahmed [2019] HKCA 377 at [20]; Re Qasim Ali [2019] HKCA 430 at [23] to [26]; and Re Castillo Raquel Adona & Anor [2022] HKCA 1053.”

Summaries and metadata are generated from the judgment. Report an error

Cites 4 cases

Cases cited in this judgment

Re Garcia Dennis Casenas
[2025] HKCA 303 · Court of Appeal
08 Apr 2025
Full analysis
Re Khan Kamal Ahmed
[2019] HKCA 377 · Court of Appeal
02 Apr 2019
Full analysis
Re Qasim Ali
[2019] HKCA 430 · Court of Appeal
08 Apr 2019
Full analysis
Re Castillo Raquel Adona and Another
[2022] HKCA 1053 · Court of Appeal
20 Jul 2022
Full analysis
Related Cases
Ranked by citation overlap · cases that cite each other appear first

Kamau Douglas Nganga v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1348/2021 · High Court CFI
13 May 2026
4 shared citations

Mehfooz Khan v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 2907/2019 · High Court CFI
23 Dec 2025
4 shared citations

Ranjit Singh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 3106/2019 · High Court CFI
15 Jul 2025
4 shared citations

Kashif Mahmood v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 2238/2020 · High Court CFI
13 May 2025
4 shared citations