Re Manju

HCAL 624/2018

[2020] HKCFI 2255

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 624 OF 2018 

_____________

_____________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.On 21 May 2020 I struck out and dismissed the Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) in dismissing his appeal regarding his non-refoulement claim upon finding that it was his second such application after his previous application under HCAL 422/2017 had been refused and had not been appealed, that the principle of res judicata applied to his second application, and that it was an abuse of process for him to try to re-litigate his case by bringing a second judicial review of the same decision of the Board.

2.The Applicant now by a summons issued on 8 June 2020 seeks leave to appeal against that decision out of time, 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 4 June 2020, and hence he was late by 4 days 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, while a delay of 4 days may not be regarded as significant, for which he did not provide any explanation at the hearing other than claiming that he did not know anything about the law or the decision, but more importantly nor did he in his summons or affirmation or at the hearing provide any draft or proposed grounds of appeal, or any particulars of any error in the decision, or why it may be argued that it was unfair or unreasonable.  As such and in the absence of any error in the decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not see any prospect of success in his intended appeal.

5.In the premises, it would be futile to extend time for what appears to be a hopeless appeal.  Accordingly, I refuse his application for leave to appeal out of time, and dismiss his summons.

The applicant appeared in person