BabelCite

Kunti Puspita v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 1366/2023[2026] HKCFI 5366
Court
High Court CFI
Date05 Oct 2026
Judge—
Case Document
100%

HCAL 1366/2023

[2026] HKCFI 5366

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1366 of 2023

BETWEEN

  Kunti Puspita 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) Keith Lam:

1.  Form 86 be amended, removing the Director of Immigration as a putative respondent and naming 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:

1.By Form 86 filed on 8 August 2023 (“Form 86”), the Applicant seeks leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“TCAB”) dated 11 July 2023 (“TCAB Decision”), which affirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration (“DOI”) dated 10 August 2021 (“DOI Decision”).

2.The Form 86 incorrectly named both the TCAB and the DOI as putative respondents, and the TCAB as the putative interested party. I therefore amend the Form 86 on my own motion to remove the DOI as a putative respondent and to name the DOI as the putative interested party.

3.By an affirmation made on 24 August 2026, the Applicant applied for leave to withdraw her application for leave to apply for judicial review and indicated that she does not wish to follow up on her claim because she wants to go back to her country, Indonesia.

4.At the oral hearing on 16 September 2026, she confirmed that she made the decision to withdraw this leave application out of her own free will.

5.Given the Applicant’s application for withdrawal, it is not necessary for the Court to adjudicate on the merits of her application: Ngo Xuan Tuyen v Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office [2024] HKCA 1140 at §14.

6.I accede to the application to withdraw. As explained in Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471 at §19(1), there is nothing outstanding in the proceedings. The application for leave to apply for judicial review is therefore dismissed.

Dated the 5th day of October 2026

  (Joyce Ooi)
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 5/10/2026

Kunti Puspita

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 5/10/2026

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 18569

Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1059/21 (formerly RBCZ 10322/21)

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


Form CALL-1

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

Cites 2 cases

Cases cited in this judgment

Ngo Xuan Tuyen v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
[2024] HKCA 1140 · Court of Appeal
20 Dec 2024
Full analysis
Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi
[2022] HKCA 471 · Court of Appeal
01 Apr 2022
Full analysis
Related Cases
Ranked by citation overlap · cases that cite each other appear first

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

HCAL 1471/2023 · Court of First Instance
23 Oct 2026
2 shared citations
Full analysis

Siti Patimah v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1656/2023 · Court of First Instance
14 Oct 2026
2 shared citations
Full analysis

Nanik Bintari v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1589/2023 · Court of First Instance
14 Oct 2026
2 shared citations
Full analysis

Suprihatin Sadimin v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1559/2023 · Court of First Instance
14 Oct 2026
2 shared citations
Full analysis