13 May 2026
The court refused the applicant's attempt to withdraw and dismissed the leave application because the applicant's stated resolution of issues and removal from Hong Kong meant there was no practical risk of refoulement; therefore granting leave or any remedy would be otiose even if legal errors existed in the Board's decision.
13 May 2026
The court refused the applicant's request to withdraw and dismissed the leave application because the applicant had indicated her issues were resolved and returned to Indonesia, rendering any grant of leave otiose; following authority the proper disposition is dismissal rather than leaving the action at large and there was no practical purpose in ordering relief even if errors existed in the Board's decision.
13 May 2026
The court refused the applicant's request to withdraw the leave application and dismissed the leave application on the ground that the applicant had confirmed it was safe to return to Indonesia, rendering any remedy otiose; therefore even if legal errors existed in the Board's decision no practical relief could follow. The court also amended the putative respondent to the Torture Claims Appeal Board only.
29 Apr 2026
The leave application is dismissed because the Applicant failed to particularise any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board had considered the claims afresh and provided adequate reasons satisfying the enhanced Wednesbury test in non-refoulement cases; consequently the intended challenge was not reasonably arguable and lacked realistic prospects of success; Form 86 is amended to name the Director of Immigration as Putative Interested Party.
15 Apr 2026
The court refused the applicant's request to withdraw and dismissed the leave application because the applicant affirmed it was safe to return to Vietnam, rendering the non-refoulement claim otiose; the court also amended the putative interested party to the Director of Immigration on its own motion.
15 Apr 2026
The application to withdraw the leave application was refused and the leave application was dismissed because the applicant confirmed it was safe to return to Indonesia, rendering the non‑refoulement claim otiose; accordingly, granting leave would serve no practical purpose even if there were arguable errors in the Board's decision. The court also amended the putative interested party to the Director of Immigration.
26 Mar 2026
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to particularise or demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board had conducted hearings and given adequate reasons and the proposed challenge was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.
16 Mar 2026
The Leave Application was dismissed because the Director's decision was superseded by the appeal to the Board and the Applicant validly withdrew the Leave Application; the court therefore amended Form 86 to name the correct parties and did not adjudicate the merits.
3 Mar 2026
The Form 86 was amended under the court's power in the Rules to name the correct putative respondent and putative interested party; the application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant validly sought to withdraw the application, there was no suggestion the withdrawal was not voluntary, and nothing remained outstanding in the proceedings.
3 Mar 2026
The court corrected the party names by amending Form 86; because the applicant voluntarily withdrew the leave application and there were no outstanding matters, the proper disposition was to dismiss the application.