GURMIT SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
HTML content
HCAL649/2017
[2018] HKCFI 445
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 649 of 2017
BETWEEN
| Gurmit Singh | Applicant | |
| and | ||
| Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office | Putative 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 the documents only; or | |
| consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court; |
Order by Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock:
Leave to apply for Judicial Review withdrawn.
Observations for the Applicant (Order by Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock):
1. This applicant filed a notice of application for leave to apply for judicial review on 15 September 2017. He sought to judicial review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 14 July 2017. The adjudicator of the Board rejected his appeal of the determination made by the Director of Immigration on 7 October 2015 and 22 March 2017. The Director had rejected his non-refoulement protection claim on all applicable grounds.
2. The applicant requested an oral hearing of his application and a hearing date was set down for 28 February 2018. The applicant confirmed during the hearing that he had written to the court on 7 February 2018 to say he had made an application for legal aid and wanted an adjournment. In court, he could not remember the date of his application and had no record of it; the court had no memorandum from the legal aid so proceeded with the hearing with the applicant in person.
3. After I summarised his grounds, he confirmed they were accurate. I then asked the applicant if he had anything to add to his grounds or if he had anything he wished to say to supplement his grounds. The applicant then informed the Court that he wished to withdraw his leave application because he intended to inform the immigration Department that he wanted to go home immediately.
4. I clarified his intentions further; the applicant confirmed that he had spoken with his family in India and his mother was seriously ill in hospital and he wanted to leave Hong Kong to return home. Being satisfied he understood the consequences of withdrawing his application, I then granted the applicant leave to withdraw it.
Dated 28th day of February 2018.
| (Alan Ngan) | |
| 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
| Notesfor the Applicant: If leave has been granted, the Applicant or his 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 28/2/2018 Gurmit Singh 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 28/2/2018 Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 2427/15/10/96/IN507 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1337/15 &RBCZ 9000713/17 (formerly RBCZ 847/14) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Office (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1