Wiwik Kusmawati v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 452/2023[2026] HKCFI 4295

Court

High Court CFI

Date07 Aug 2026

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 452/2023

[2026] HKCFI 4295

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 452 of 2023

BETWEEN
	Wiwik Kusmawati	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) Sabrina Ho:

1. Leave to withdraw the application for leave to apply for judicial review be granted;

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By a Form 86 filed on 23 March 2023, the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against the Decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 16 February 2023.

2.In the Affirmation in support of the Leave Application, the Applicant exhibited a copy of the Board’s Decision and set out some grounds to support her Leave Application.

3.The Applicant requested an oral hearing for the Leave Application, which took place on 16 June 2026 (the “Hearing”). At the Hearing, the Applicant said that she has nothing to add orally.

4.On 3 July 2026, the Applicant filed a further Affirmation indicating her intention to withdraw the Leave Application. She said that the problem in her home country, Indonesia, has been resolved and she would like to withdraw the Leave Application. I take the view that the Applicant made the above decision on her own volition and free will. I will accede to the application for withdrawal without adjudicating on its merits. As there is nothing outstanding, and the proceedings should not be left at large, I further ordered that the leave application be dismissed: see Re Manik MD Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471 at paragraph 19.

Dated the 7^th day of August 2026

(Klein Tse)
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 7/8/2026 Wiwik Kusmawati 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 7/8/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 18771 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 743/21 (formerly RBCZ/88/21) 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