Re Ratna Lestari
Read the full judgment text of HCAL 129/2017 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 29 November 2018.
1. On 8 September 2017 Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the decisions of the Director of Immigration and of the Torture Claims Appeal Board in rejecting and dismissing her appeal/petition regarding her non-refoulement claim upon finding none of the grounds put forward by her as reasonably arguable or with any prospect of success in her intended application.
Cited by 1 case
|
HCAL 129/2017 [2018] HKCFI 2421 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 129 OF 2017 ______________
______________ Before: Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan in Chambers Date of Hearing: 23 October 2018 Date of Decision: 29 November 2018 __________________ D E C I S I O N __________________ 1.On 8 September 2017 Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the decisions of the Director of Immigration and of the Torture Claims Appeal Board in rejecting and dismissing her appeal/petition regarding her non-refoulement claim upon finding none of the grounds put forward by her as reasonably arguable or with any prospect of success in her intended application. 2.The applicant now by a summons issued on 10 September 2018 seeks leave to appeal against that decision out of time, as the 14-day period for her to lodge her appeal under Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A ended on 22 September 2017, and hence she was late by almost one year with her 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 almost one year must be regarded as very excessive, and neither in her summons nor in her supporting affirmation of the same date did she provide any explanation for such excessive delay, nor was she able to do so at the hearing of her summons before me, while there is no question of her not being aware of the decision as she did not raise any issue of not receiving it or any change of her address at the material time. 5.Further, she did not provide any draft or proposed ground for her intended appeal, or any particulars as to any error in the decision or whyit was unreasonable or unfair, and in the absence of any reasonably arguable ground I am unable to see any prospect of success in her intended appeal. 6.In the premises it would be futile to extend time for what appears to me a hopeless appeal. Accordingly I refuse her application for leave to appeal out of time, and dismiss her summons.
The applicant appeared in person |
Other judgments that cite this case