Latif Mohammad Abdul v. Torture Claims Appeal Board
Read the full judgment text of CACV 246/2018 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 28 June 2019.
1. In HCAL 1003/2017, the applicant sought leave on 4 December 2017 to bring judicial review in respect of a decision of the Board of 8 February 2017. The application was refused by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan on 15 June 2018 who refused to grant extension of time for the judicial review application to be brought. In this appeal, the applicant sought to reverse the order of 15 June 2018.
Cites 3 cases
|
CACV 246/2018 [2019] HKCA 701 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 246 OF 2018 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1003/2017) _________________________
_________________________ Before: Hon Lam VP and Barma JA in Court Dates of Written Submissions: 7, 28 March and 21 May 2018 Date of Judgment: 28 June 2019 ________________ J U D G M E N T ________________ Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.In HCAL 1003/2017, the applicant sought leave on 4 December 2017 to bring judicial review in respect of a decision of the Board of 8 February 2017. The application was refused by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan on 15 June 2018 who refused to grant extension of time for the judicial review application to be brought. In this appeal, the applicant sought to reverse the order of 15 June 2018. 2.Previously, he had brought judicial review against the same decision in HCAL 33/2017. Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock refused leave on 25 August 2017. The applicant did not appeal against that decision. He did not inform Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan of his unsuccessful attempt in HCAL 33/2017. 3.On appeal, the duplication of proceedings was brought to the attention of the Court by a Respondent’s Notice of 11 July 2018 filed by the putative interested party. 4.On 30 August 2018, the Court made an unless order in these terms:
5.The applicant was notified of the unless order by post sent to the address he stated on the Notice of Appeal. 6.The Applicant did not lodge submissions to dispute that by virtue of the duplication with HCAL 33/2017 the appeal is an abuse of process. 7.Pursuant to the unless order, the appeal was struck out on 14 September 2018. 8.About 5 months later, the applicant took out a summons on 12 February 2019 seeking relief in respect of the unless order. He supported the application by an affirmation of the same date. He claimed that he was not aware of the unless order because he had no key to the letter box and his landlord had been away. 9.In his affirmation, he did not explain why he did not appeal against the decision in HCAL 33/2017. Nor did he dispute that HCAL 1003/2017 was a challenge in respect of the same Board decision. 10.Having considered the applicant’s summons and affirmation and the submissions lodged by the parties, we refuse to grant relief for the following reasons:
11.We dismiss the summons of 12 February 2019.
The applicant acting in person Ms Patricia Lam, Government Counsel, of the Department of Justice, for the putative interested party |
Cases cited in this judgment