HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Constitutional and Administrative Law Proceedings2016

MD RAHMAT ULLAH v. P. K. M. LONGLEY, ESQ.

Related cases with same parties

  • HCAL230/2016MD RAHMAT ULLAH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
107077-EN-2016-12-01

MD RAHMAT ULLAH v. P. K. M. LONGLEY, ESQ.

HTML content

HCAL 32/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 32 OF 2016

________________________

BETWEEN

 MD RAHMAT ULLAHApplicant

and

 P. K. M. LONGLEY, ESQ.Proposed
  Respondent

and

 DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATIONInterested Party

________________________

Before: Hon Lok J, in Court
Date of Hearing: 1 December 2016
Date of Judgment: 1 December 2016

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1.  This is an application for leave to apply for judicial review.  The applicant requested for an oral hearing and so the court conducts the present hearing as requested.

2.  However, the applicant does not turn up at the hearing.  In such circumstances, the application for leave is refused for want of prosecution.

3.  In any event, if the court has to consider the merits of the application, I have perused the decision made by the adjudicator of the Torture Claims Appeal Board.  The reasoning given by the adjudicator cannot be faulted, and so there is no chance that the applicant can persuade the court to disturb the decision of the adjudicator.

4.  I have also considered the documents lodged by the applicant in support of the present application.  Most of the materials therein are just a repetition of the arguments placed before the adjudicator.  They add nothing new to the applicant’s claim. Hence, even if I have to consider the merits of the application, I will still refuse the application.

5.  The application for leave to apply for judicial review is therefore dismissed.

(David Lok)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
of the High Court

 

The applicant was not represented and did not appear