Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Lili Lestari And Another v Torture Claims Appeal Board And Another [Decision On Leave Application]

Judgment Cited in 1 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date23 March 2018
Neutral Citation[2018] HKCFI 664
Year2018
Judgement NumberHCAL240/2016
Subject MatterConstitutional and Administrative Law Proceedings
CourtCourt of First Instance (Hong Kong)
HCAL240/2016 LILI LESTARI AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER

HCAL 240/2016

[2018] HKCFI 664

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 240 of 2016

BETWEEN

Lili Lestari Applicant 1
Edi Subagio Meilani Subagio Applicant 2
and
Torture Claims Appeal Board Putative Respondent 1
Director of Immigration Putative Respondent 2

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 oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

Order by the Honourable Mr. Justice Yau :

Leave to apply for Judicial Review is refused.

Observations for the Applicants (Order by the Honourable Mr. Justice Yau):

1. Applicant 1 (“A1”) is an Indonesian female, born in Solo City of Central Java Province, Indonesia on 9 September 1982. She received education up to senior high school level in 2001. She got married in 2000 and gave birth to a son in 2002. In the same year she together with her husband, parents and son moved to Braja Sakti Hamlet in Lampung province.

2. She worked as a domestic helper in Malaysia from 2004 to 2006 and in Taiwan from 2006 to 2007. Around August 2008 she came to Hong Kong to do the same job while her husband remained in Indonesia, doing some temporary jobs earning a small income.

3. Around late August 2011 A1 returned to Indonesia for vacation. After discussion with her husband they decided to borrow some money to establish a business in Indonesia, hoping to earn more money for the family.

4. Around early September 2011 they obtained a loan of IDR 37,000,000 from a money lender named Sri Rahayu at a monthly interest of IRD 200,000 for every IRD 1,000,000 borrowed. The loan was to be repaid by monthly instalments of 3 years. The loan agreement was signed by A1 and her husband but it was lost in a flood.

5. The money lender was their neighbour and known for being a loan shark. They borrowed money from her because they did not have collateral to obtain a loan by any other means and believed she was the only one who could help them. She was wealthy and influential in the district of Braja Sakti Hamlet. A1, however, did not know if she had any political affiliations or was in any way connected with the Indonesian government.

6. A1 returned to work in Hong Kong after obtaining the loan. Her husband set up a grocery store and A1 helped him repay the loan by her income in Hong Kong. The business of her husband did not do well. In December 2012 the employment contract of A1 was terminated and A1 and her husband were unable to repay the loan. The money lender kept pressing her husband for repayment in an aggressive manner and when he was unable to do so she said to him angrily, “You would see what will happen. I will ruin your life.”

7. A1 talked to the money lender in 2013 and the latter agreed to allow her to repay the money within 3 years, but she failed to do so because she kept changing her employer in Hong Kong and had to pay the agency fees from her income. She was only employed for a few months in the early part of 2013 and her income was not sufficient to repay the loan. The money lender threatened her over telephone on numerous occasions that she would destroy her if she failed to repay the loan. The money lender also said she would make a report to the police and would beat her up. A1 changed her telephone number 5 to 6 times to avoid her calls.

8. A1’s last contract of employment was terminated on 5 May 2013, but she chose to stay in Hong Kong to look for new employment as she was afraid that she would be harmed by the money lender if she returned to Indonesia. This was in breach of her conditions of stay which required her to leave Hong Kong within 2 weeks of the termination of her employment. She was arrested for overstaying in Hong Kong on...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Lili Lestari And Another v Mr William Lam, Esq., Torture Claims Appeal Board
    • Hong Kong
    • Court of Appeal (Hong Kong)
    • 24 Agosto 2021
    ...repay the loan. The factual details of the applicants’ claims were summarized by Yau J in [3] – [9] of the CALL-1 Form in HCAL 240/2016 ([2018] HKCFI 664). DIRECTOR’S DECISION 5. By a Notice of Decision dated 17 April 2015, the Director of Immigration (“the Director”), having assessed the a......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT