BabelCite

Winarti Binti Dulzaet v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 389/2023[2026] HKCFI 3320
Court
High Court CFI
Date10 Jun 2026
Judge—
Case Document
100%

HCAL 389/2023

[2026] HKCFI 3320

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 389 of 2023

BETWEEN
  Winarti Binti Dulzaet 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 oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Isaac Chan:

1.      Application to withdraw the application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be granted; and

2.      Application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 15 March 2023 (“Form 86”), the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claim Appeal Board / the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 17 February 2023 (“Board’s Decision”)[1] confirming the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 28 February 2022.

2.At the hearing on 7 May 2026, the applicant informed the court of her wish to withdraw the present application as she wanted to return to her home country, Indonesia, by the end of this year.  Upon my inquiry, she reconfirmed her intention to withdraw.

3.I am satisfied that the application to withdraw the Form 86 was based on an informed and voluntary decision of the applicant. I therefore grant leave to the applicant to withdraw her application for leave to apply for the judicial review under the Form 86.  Given there is nothing outstanding, the action should not be left at large.  The Form 86 should be dismissed accordingly: see Re Manik MD Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471, at paragraph 19. 

Dated the 10th day of June 2026

  (Wilinda YIU)
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 10/6/2026

Winarti Binti Dulzaet

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 10/6/2026

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 20026

Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 1829/21 (formerly RBCZ 10789/21)

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