Read the full judgment text of CAMP 16/2019 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 6 June 2019 before Hon Lam VP and Barma JA.
Administrative law – judicial review – non-refoulement claim – extension of time to appeal – abuse of process – Court of Appeal – Bangladeshi national – torture claim assessed under unified screening mechanism based on threats from customers, arrest for drinking, and family political rival – Director of Immigration rejected claim – Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissed appeal on 28 April 2017 – leave to apply for judicial review in HCAL 168/2017 refused by DHCJ Woodcock on 18 August 2017 – applicant filed second leave application in HCAL 939/2017 against same Board decision – also refused – extension of time to appeal against DHCJ Woodcock's decision refused by DHCJ Bruno Chan on 16 November 2018 – applicant sought leave to appeal out of time before Court of Appeal – whether to extend time – whether second leave application was an abuse of process – whether intended appeal has reasonable prospect of success – legal principles on role of Court in judicial review of non-refoulement decisions – four-factor test for extension of time: length of delay, reasons for delay, prospect of appeal, prejudice – delay of 13 months substantial and inexcusable – second application for leave to apply for judicial review against same Board decision is an abuse of process and cannot be relied on to explain delay – general assertions cannot constitute valid grounds for challenging Board's decision – proposed ground on state acquiescence/involvement had no factual basis – DHCJ Woodcock gave adequate reasons and applied enhanced Wednesbury scrutiny – summons dismissed – no oral hearing inter partes.
Legal issues: Whether to extend time for appealing refusal of leave to apply for judicial review · Whether second leave application constituted an abuse of process · Merit of the intended appeal against DHCJ Woodcock's refusal of leave
Outcome: The summons dated 28 January 2019 is dismissed. The application for leave to appeal out of time is refused.
Cited by 235 cases · Cites 17 cases