3 Mar 2026
Because the applicant was repatriated and section 37ZF deems a torture/non-refoulement claim withdrawn upon the claimant's departure from Hong Kong, the leave application was dismissed as the court concluded any relief would serve no practical purpose (mootness); the leave was refused and any hearing vacated.
26 Feb 2026
The court amended Form 86 on its own motion to name only the Torture Claims Appeal Board as putative respondent and the Director of Immigration as putative interested party; because the applicant had obtained residence in Hong Kong and was absent, there was nothing outstanding in the action and the application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed.
15 Oct 2025
Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant had been removed from Hong Kong and under s37ZF her torture/non-refoulement claim is deemed withdrawn, leaving no live controversy and no practical purpose for relief.
2 Oct 2025
Dismissal of leave application because Form 86 failed to specify the decision and relief; the asserted prosecutorial complaints were non‑justiciable and time‑barred rendering the issues academic; applicant lacked standing to challenge third‑party licence decisions; no material showed procedural impropriety or unreasonableness; application was commenced out of time without justification.
3 Sept 2025
The leave application was out of time under Order 53 r 4(1) and, in any event, the applicant validly and voluntarily withdrew the application rendering the challenge moot; accordingly the court amended Form 86 to correct the parties and dismissed the leave application.
27 Aug 2025
Because the applicant validly sought to withdraw the leave application and there is no indication of coercion, the challenge to the Board's decision became moot; consequently the court dismissed the leave application without adjudicating the merits and amended Form 86 to correct party names.
25 Aug 2025
The applicant's unequivocal voluntary withdrawal of the leave application rendered the challenge moot; accordingly the court dismissed the leave application and, on its own motion, ordered Form 86 amended to name the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office as 1st Putative Respondent and the Director of Immigration as 2nd Putative Respondent.
25 Aug 2025
The leave application was dismissed because the applicant voluntarily applied to withdraw and did not attend the hearing; his withdrawal made the challenge to the Board's decision moot and therefore there was no necessity to decide the merits. The court also corrected the Form 86 to properly name the putative respondent on its own motion.
21 Aug 2025
The applicant voluntarily withdrew the leave application and indicated his wish to return to his country, rendering the challenge moot; therefore the court dismissed the leave application and amended Form 86 to correctly name the putative respondent without adjudicating the merits.
11 Aug 2025
Because the applicant voluntarily withdrew the leave application and there was no suggestion of compulsion, the challenge to the Board's decision became moot; the court accordingly dismissed the leave application without adjudicating the merits, following appellate authorities on mootness.