Re Rina Mulyani and Another

HCAL 654/2018

[2020] HKCFI 2565

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 654 OF 2018  

_____________

_____________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan in Chambers

Date of Decision: 15 October 2020

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.On 31 August 2020 I refused to extend time to the Applicants’ late application for leave 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 their non-refoulement claim upon finding no good reason for their serious delay with their application, that none of the grounds put forward by them reasonably arguable for their 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 their intended application.

2.The Applicants now by a summons issued on 16 September 2020 seek extension of time to appeal against that decision, as the 14-day period for them to file their appeal under Order 53 rule 3(4) of the Rules of High Court, Cap 4A ended on 14 September 2020, and hence they were late by 2 days with their 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 Applicants’ case, a delay of 2 days cannot on any view be considered as significant, for which the 1^st Applicant explained in her affirmation that since they were unrepresented and needed to find someone to help them with their appeal application, but by then they were already out of time.

5.In the circumstances, and given the impact of the current Covid-19 pandemic on the general postal service which was at times in operation only 3 days per week, and also on the High Court Registry with reduced operation hours and limited people flow, I accept the Applicants’ explanation for their slight delay and that there are justifications to extend time for them to file their appeal.

6.In the premises, and in view of the current public health situation, I propose to deal with the matter on paper, and grant the Applicants an extension of time to file their notice of appeal within 14 days of this order.

he applicants are unrepresented