Re Masum Madbar

HCAL 762/2017

[2018] HKCFI 2435

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 762 OF 2017

______________

______________

___________________

D E C I S I O N

___________________

1.On 12 June 2018 Deputy High Court Judge Lam refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of theTorture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) in dismissing his appeal/petition regarding his non-refoulement claim upon finding none of the grounds put forward by him as reasonably arguable or with any prospect of success in his intended application.

2.The applicant now by a summons issued on 16 October 2018 seeks leave to appeal against that decision out of time, as the 14-day period for him to lodge his appeal under Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A ended on 26 June 2018, and hence he was late by more than three and a half months with his intended application.

3.In considering whether to extend time for appealing against a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review, the Court will have regard to (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted.

4.In the applicant’s case a delay of more than three and a half months must be regarded as substantial, and in his supporting affirmation of the same date he explained that he did not receive the decision from the Court and did not understand why because he had all along resided at the same address at all material time and did receive other letters from the court, of which I am not satisfied that he has provided a credible explanation.

5.More importantly, notwithstanding his claim to have good grounds to appeal in his affirmation which appears to have been prepared with legal assistance, he did not produce any draft or proposed ground of appeal, nor did he attend the hearing of his summons when he could at least provide particulars as to any error in the decision or why it was unfair or unreasonable, without which I am unable to see any prospect of success in his intended appeal.

6.In the premises it would be futile to extend time for what appears to me a hopeless appeal.  Accordingly I refuse his application for leave to appeal out of time, and dismiss his summons.

The applicant was not represented and did not appear