Re Bhukal Sukhchain Singh

HCAL 716/2018

[2020] HKCFI 1611

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 716 OF 2018

________________________

________________________

Before:  Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan in Chambers

Date of Hearing:  8 July 2020

Date of Decision:  28 July 2020

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.On 16 January 2020 I refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) or the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) in rejecting/dismissing his non-refoulement claim upon finding none of the grounds put forward by him reasonably arguable for his intended challenge, that there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the process before the Director or the Board or in their decisions, and that there was no reasonable prospect of success in his intended application.

2.The Applicant now by a summons issued on 16 March 2020 seeks extension of time to appeal against that decision, as the 14-day period for him to file his appeal under Order 53 rule 3(4) of the Rules of High Court, Cap 4A ended on 30 January 2020, and hence he was late by about 1 ½ months 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 shall have regard to (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reason for the delay; (iii) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (iv) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted: see Re MK HCMP 2609/2016, 10 January 2017; Chu On Fong Winter v The Appeal Panel (Housing) HCMP 982/2017, 20 July 2017; Islam Raja Rais v Director of Immigration HCMP 881/2017, 26 June 2017; Re Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226; and Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346.

4.In the Applicant’s case, a delay of 1 ½ months cannot be regarded as insignificant, for which he explained that he was unable to file his notice of appeal within time because the Registry was closed due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

5.Given the fact that the General Adjourned Period (“GAP”) was announced by the Judiciary on 29 January 2020 prior to the deadline for the Applicant to file his notice of appeal, I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt that he would have been able to do so had GAP not been in place at that time, and accordingly grant him leave to file his notice of appeal within 14 days of this decision.

The applicant appeared in person