Re Kokanzo Ngomene Juste Magloire Patrick

HCAL 823/2017

[2018] HKCFI 2428

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 823 OF 2017

______________

______________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 25 October 2018

Date of Decision: 29 November 2018

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

1.On 7 September 2018 I refused to grant leave to the applicant toapply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture 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 26 September 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 21 September 2018, and hence he was late by 5 days with his intended appeal.

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 5 days would not normally beconsidered as substantial, for which he explained in his supporting affidavit of the same date that as he did not have the means to pay for the appeal he had to make an unsuccessful application to the Master of the High Court to waive his court fees which caused the delay, but still it would be relevant to consider the prospect of his intended appeal by reference to his proposed grounds of appeal.

5.However, he did not provide any either in his summons or supporting affirmation, nor did he attend the hearing of his summons when he instead wrote to inform that “he was sick and had to see a doctor on the day for his tooth”, and in the absence of any proposed grounds of appeal or any suggestion of legal error in the decision or why it was unfair or unreasonable, 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