|
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.”
|