HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Constitutional and Administrative Law Proceedings2024

NGUYEN VAN MINH v. THE TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Related cases with same parties

  • CACV243/2021NGUYEN VAN MINH 對 TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV253/2023NGUYEN VAN MINH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
  • HCAL1202/2023DUONG THI THAO v. THE TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]
  • HCAL1612/2021HOANG TUAN ANH v. THE TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]
  • HCAL2475/2024PHAM VAN THANH v. THE TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]
  • HCAL2579/2024JUNAIDI MUHAMMAD v. THE TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]
  • HCAL358/2024ILHAM PUSPA DURY v. THE TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]
  • HCAL593/2025NURUL MAHMUDA v. THE TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]
  • HCAL657/2023NGUYEN VAN MINH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]
  • HCAL685/2021NGUYEN VAN MINH 對 酷刑聲請上訴委員會/免遣返聲請呈請辦事處 [Decision on Leave Application]
[2026] HKCFI 526-EN-2026-02-11

NGUYEN VAN MINH v. THE TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

HTML content

HCAL 615/2024

[2026] HKCFI 526

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 615 of 2024

 

BETWEEN

 Nguyen Van MinhApplicant
 and 
 The Torture Claims Appeal BoardPutative
  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 applies for withdrawal of the application for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.  As such, the applicant’s application is devoid of merit.

2.  There being no evidence that the application is made other than out of the applicant’s free will; and there being no outstanding matter in this action, the Court accedes to the applicant’s request and dismisses the application accordingly[1].

 

 

Dated the 11th day of February 2026

  (Allen LEE)
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 11/2/2026

Nguyen Van Minh

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 11/2/2026

Torture Claims Appeal Board
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 22455

Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: VRD 103/1/23(L)

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



Form CALL-1

 



[1]  Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi[2022] HKCA 471 at §19:

“(1) The applicant on his own motion applied to the Court to withdraw his application for leave to apply for judicial review.  The Judge acceded to his application, whereupon there was nothing outstanding in the action.  The Judge was correct to conclude the action by ordering a dismissal of the application instead of leaving the action at large.”