BabelCite

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

Case No.HCAL 1559/2023[2026] HKCFI 5369
Court
Court of First Instance
Date14 Oct 2026
JudgeDeputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Keith Lam
Case Document
100%

HCAL 1559/2023

[2026] HKCFI 5369

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1559 of 2023

BETWEEN

  Suprihatin Sadimin 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 (Non-refoulement Claims) Keith Lam:

1.  Form 86 be amended, 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 4 September 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 24 August 2023 (“TCAB Decision”), which affirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration (“DOI”) dated 17 October 2022 (“DOI Decision”).

2.The Form 86 incorrectly named the TCAB as the putative interested party. I therefore amend the Form 86 on my own motion to name the DOI as the putative interested party.

3.By a letter dated 7 August 2026, the DOI informed the Court that the Applicant had submitted a letter dated 4 August 2026 (which was annexed to the DOI’s letter) indicating that she would like to withdraw her judicial review application.

4.The Applicant requested for an oral hearing of this application. She was absent from the hearing. I see no irregularity in the notification process.

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 14th 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 14/10/2026

Suprihatin Sadimin

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 14/10/2026

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 21101

Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 799/22 (formerly RBCZ/5000671/22)

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
followed
Full analysis
Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi
[2022] HKCA 471 · Court of Appeal
01 Apr 2022
followed
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

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

HCAL 576/2023 · High Court CFI
09 Oct 2026
2 shared citations