HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Constitutional and Administrative Law Proceedings2020

AMANPREET v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Related cases with same parties

  • HCAL100/2026UY SHERYL ORTIGUERO as guardian ad litem of UY TRIXSHIELL CASSIE ORTIGUERO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
  • HCAL1015/2019KAMOL HOSSAIN MOHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
  • HCAL104/2021ALI SAQIB v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
  • HCAL1081/2018UDDIN MIHA JALAL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]
  • HCAL1095/2021RE DOAN DUY BA
  • HCAL1102/2018MADDHESIA BIRENDRA KUMAR v. YU CHEUK-MAN, ESQ. [Decision on Leave Application]
  • HCAL1111/2018RE PAYARA MST RABAYA AKTER
  • HCAL1112/2018RAMIREZ MELISSA MEJIA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
  • HCAL1112/2020BAH SANUSI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
  • HCAL1116/2018DAO THI NHUNG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
  • HCAL1143/2018DIPA BILKIS NAHAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
  • HCAL1146/2018SULTANA REBAKA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
  • HCAL1147/2021ELING WIJAYANTI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
  • HCAL115/2020BUI HUU TRUONG alias BUI HUU VUN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
  • HCAL1154/2019KULJINDER SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
  • HCAL1158/2019JEVANPREET SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
  • HCAL1162/2021DAO TRONG CHI alias PHAM VAN CHI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
  • HCAL1163/2019DAO THI NGOAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
  • HCAL1170/2019VIJAYAKUMARA RAJA VISHNUSANKAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
  • HCAL1171/2019UCHEONYE IFEANYICHUKWU STANLEY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
[2025] HKCFI 99-EN-2025-01-07

AMANPREET v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

HTML content

HCAL 411/2020

[2025] HKCFI 99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2890 of 2019

BETWEEN

 AmanpreetApplicant
 and 
 Torture Claims Appeal Board/
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative
Respondent
 and 
 Director of ImmigrationPutative
  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 K.W. Lung:

Leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.  The applicant was an illegal immigrant and had made non-refoulement claim to the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). The Director refused the claim. The applicant appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) and by the Board’s Decision, the appeal was dismissed.

2.  The applicant filed Form 86 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3.  The Court received information from the Immigration Department that the applicant has deceased.

4.  For the purpose of case management and the reasons below, this application should be dismissed:

(1)  The action has come to an end, with no party surviving it. Paragraph 15/7/2 of The Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2025, Vol. 1:

“Abatement of action - If death terminates the cause of action, in the interest of the party, the action is at an end (Bowker v Evans (1885) 15 Q.B.D. 565, CA; Phillips v Homfray (1883) 24 Ch.D. 456, CA; Batthyany v. Wakfird (1887) 36 Ch.D. 269 at 281, CA; James v. Morgan [1909]1 K.B. 564”

(2)  The court will not grant the remedy sought in the action as it will serve no practical purpose. The Court of Appeal in AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63 of 2015, Hon. Lam VP, Kwan and Poon JJA, 3 November 2015 held:

“67. It is well established that the court may exercise discretion not to grant a remedy on judicial review if it would serve no practical purpose, where it may have become otiose or pointless to grant a remedy because the relevant detriment to the applicant has been removed (De Smith’s Judicial Review (7th ed) at §§18-054 to 18-056; Judicial Review by Supperstone, Goudie and Walker (5th ed) at §18.18.1). …”

5.  I dismiss the applicant’s application.

Dated the 7th day of January 2025

  (M.O. WONG)(Ms)
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 7/1/2025

Amanpreet

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 7/1/2025

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 9207/17/11/218/IN1732

Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 2107/17 (formerly RBCZ 11668/15) T8I80

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



Form CALL-1