Re Nguyen Lan Huong and Another
Read the full judgment text of HCAL 1660/2018 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 24 July 2020.
1. The applicants were absent on 3 July 2020, the date of hearing of this application. The Court will consider their joint application on paper.
Cited by 3 cases · Cites 1 case
|
HCAL 1660/2018 [2020] HKCFI 1645 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1660 OF 2018 ____________________
____________________ Before: Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung in Chambers Date of Hearing: 3 July 2020 Date of Decision: 24 July 2020 _______________ D E C I S I O N _______________ The application 1.The applicants were absent on 3 July 2020, the date of hearing of this application. The Court will consider their joint application on paper. 2.The applicants are mother and daughter and this is their joint application. They came to Hong Kong illegally on 2 November 2015 and surrendered to the Immigration Department on 4 January 2016. They lodged their non-refoulement claim on 11 May 2016. 3.By two Decisions, the Director rejected their claim and they appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”). The Board considered their appeal and by its decision dated 27 June 2018 (“the Board’s Decision”), it refused their appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decisions. 4.The applicants then applied to the High Court for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. 5.Having considered the merits of the case, by Form Call-1 dated 27 December 2019 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court found that there was no merit in their proposed judicial review. Accordingly, the Court dismissed their application. 6.The applicants filed a summons on 2 January 2020 for leave to appeal against the Court’s decision. 7.Under Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, the applicants may appeal against the Court’s decision to the Court of Appeal within 14 days from the Court’s decision. The deadline for them to do so is on 10 January 2020. It is therefore clear that had the applicants filed the Notice of Appeal on the date they filed their summons, ie 2 January 2020, they should be entitled to do so without asking for leave from the Court. However, they elected to take out a summons instead of filing a Notice of Appeal. 8.As of today, the applicants are out of time to file their Notice of Appeal to appeal against the Court’s decision. I shall therefore treat their application as for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision. 9.In Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702 28 June 2019 §19, the Court of Appeal held that in order to determine whether time should be extended for the applicant to appeal the decision of the Court of the First Instance refusing leave to apply for judicial review to the Court of Appeal, the prospect of success of the intended appeal is important and the court will not grant extension of time for a hopeless appeal to be pursued. Also, the applicants have to identify the errors that the Court of the First Instance had committed in coming to its decision [23]. 10.In the affirmation in support of the application, the applicants are unable to show any grounds in support of their applicant. The applicants are unable to say in what respect the Court’s decision was wrong. 11.There is no reasonable prospect of success in their intended appeal. I decline to extend time for the applicants to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the Court’s decision. I dismiss their application.
The 1st and 2nd Applicants, acting in person, were absent. |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCAL 1660/2018