Re Subasinghe Manage Dushantha Kumara

HCAL 564/2017

[2019] HKCFI 1330

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 564 OF 2017

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.On 13 February 2019 I refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply 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 no reasonably arguable ground had been put forward by him to challenge the Board’s decision, and that there was no realistic prospect of success in his intended application.

2.The applicant now by a summons issued on 21 March 2019 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 27 February 2019, and hence he was late by about three weeks 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 three weeks cannot be said to be insignificant, for which he simply explained in his supporting affirmation of the same date that he had not received any letter from the Court.  The court record shows that the decision was sent on the same day of 13 February 2019 to his last reported address and had not been returned through undelivered post, and in the absence of any further particulars or elaboration or documentary evidence from the applicant, I do not accept that he has provided any good reason for his delay.

5.Nor did he provide any draft or proposed ground for his appeal,or any particulars as to any error in the decision or why it may be said to be unfair or unreasonable, and in the absence of which I am unable to see any merits or realistic 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