DHALIWAL KIRANJIT KAUR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
HTML content
HCAL 1468/2022
[2026] HKCFI 2164
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1468 OF 2022
BETWEEN | ||
| Dhaliwal Kiranjit Kaur | 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 the documents only; or | |
| consideration of the documents and the Applicant being absent in open court; |
Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Jeffrey Chau:
1. Form 86 be amended, naming only the Torture Claim Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office as the Putative Respondent and naming only 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:
Introduction
1. By a Form 86 filed on 12 December 2022 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) dated 1 December 2022 (the “TCAB Decision”), which affirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) dated 3 September 2021 (the “DOI Decision”).
2. I amend the Form 86 on my own notion to name only the TCAB as the putative respondent and the DOI as the putative interested party.
3. The Applicant requested for a hearing of this application. She was absent from the hearing. I see no irregularity in the notification of her attendance.
4. By letter dated 26 January 2026, the Applicant sought to withdraw her judicial review application. I acceded to the application for withdrawal without adjudicating on its merits. As there was nothing outstanding, and the action should not be left at large, I further ordered that the leave application be dismissed: see Re Manik MD Mahamudun Nabi[2022] HKCA 471 at paragraph 19.
Dated the 20th day of April 2026
| (Annson CHEUNG)(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 20/4/2026 Dhaliwal Kiranjit Kaur 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 20/4/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 18761 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1339/21 (Formerly RBCZ 11302/21) (T3S4) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1