Re Otunu Pattale Mulacharige Niluka K. J.
Read the full judgment text of HCAL 2877/2018 on BabelCite. This Court of First Instance judgment was delivered on 20 October 2020 before Deputy High Court Judge C P Pang.
Constitutional and administrative law – judicial review – non-refoulement claim – extension of time – leave to appeal – Court of Final Appeal – sub-contract refused to extend time for late application for leave to apply for judicial review of decision of Torture Claims Appeal Board confirming Director of Immigration's refusal of non-refoulement claim – applicant directed by court to apply by summons for leave to appeal within 14 days pursuant to MI & IYW v Permanent Secretary for Security [2018] 4 HKC 440 – whether summons for leave to appeal should be treated as summons to extend time to file Notice of Appeal following CFA's decision in H v Director of Immigration and AH v Director of Immigration, FACV 1 & 2 of 2020, [2020] HKCFA 22, that extension of time application is not a discrete application separate from the application for leave, and that no leave under s.14AA High Court Ordinance is required to appeal a refusal of extension of time – appeal lies as of right under Order 53 r.3(4) RHC within 14 days by Notice of Appeal – applicant filed summons for leave to appeal on 27 May 2020 in compliance with court's direction, one day before expiry of 14-day appeal period on 28 May 2020 – summons treated as summons to extend time and determined without hearing – application granted – time to file Notice of Appeal extended by 14 days from the date of the order.
Legal issues: Whether to treat summons for leave to appeal as application to extend time to file Notice of Appeal following CFA decision in H v Director of Immigration
Outcome: Application granted; summons for leave to appeal treated as summons to extend time to file a Notice of Appeal, with a 14-day extension granted from the date of the order.
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 1 case
|
HCAL 2877/2018 [2020] HKCFI 2607 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO. 2877 OF 2018 _____________
_____________ Before: Deputy High Court Judge C P Pang in Chambers Date of Decision: 20 October 2020 _____________ D E C I S I O N _____________ 1.On 14 May 2020 Deputy High Court Judge Lung (“the Judge”) refused to extend time for the applicant to file her late application for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Judge’s decision”) of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) confirming the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) refusing the applicant’s non-refoulement claim. At the same time, the Judge gave a direction (“the Judge’s direction”) that “if the applicant intends to appeal against the order refusing to extend the period for making the application for leave to apply for judicial review to the Court of Appeal, she must first apply to this court within 14 days of the date of this order by way of summons for leave to appeal” (emphasis added). The Judge’s direction followed the judgment of the Court of Appeal in MI & IYW v Permanent Secretary for Security [2018] 4 HKC 440. 2.In compliance with the Judge’s direction, the applicant by a summons issued on 27 May 2020 sought leave to appeal against the Judge’s decision. 3.The Court of Final Appeal held in the recent case of H v Director of Immigration and AH v Director of Immigration, FACV 1 & 2 of 2020, [2020] HKCFA 22 given on 14 July 2020 that an application for extension of time in order to apply for leave to commence judicial review is not a discrete application, separate from the application for such leave [39]. An applicant does not need leave under Section 14AA High Court Ordinance to appeal to the Court of Appeal in respect of a refusal of extension of time to bring an application for leave to judicial review [53]. 4.Following the CFA’s decision, the Judge’s decision should be properly considered as a refusal of leave to commence judicial review. The Judge’s refusal of extension of time did not need leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The applicant could appeal from the Judge’s decision as of right within 14 days of his order: Order 53 r.3(4) RHC. In other words, the correct procedure was that the applicant should have lodged her appeal from the Judge’s decision by way of Notice of Appeal on or before 28 May 2020, instead of following the Judge’s direction and applying for leave to appeal. 5.Complying with the Judge’s direction, the applicant did on 27 May 2020 apply to the Judge by summons for leave to appeal. In fact, by then she would have been in time to file a Notice of Appeal had she followed the proper procedure instead of the Judge’s direction. However, the notice to be filed now will be out of the 14-day period and the applicant needs an extension of time to bring an appeal to the Court of Appeal. 6.In all the circumstances, I consider it appropriate to treat the applicant’s summons for leave to appeal as a summons to extend time to file a Notice of Appeal and determine it without a hearing. I will grant the application extending the time for 14 days from this order for her to file the Notice of Appeal.
The applicant acted in person |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCAL 2877/2018