Read the full judgment text of CAMP 92/2020 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 1 March 2021 before Cheung JA and Au JA.
Administrative law – judicial review – non-refoulement claims – extension of time to appeal – Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court (Cap 4A) – four-month delay beyond 14-day statutory time limit – explanation of lost mail not accepted where decision sent to addresses provided by applicant and not returned undelivered – duty of litigant to provide effective address for service – whether intended appeal has real prospect of success when delay is inexcusable – whether to extend time to 1st applicant who failed to advance any draft grounds of appeal – Immigration Ordinance (Cap 115) s.37ZT and general legal propositions on Wednesbury unreasonableness cited but not elaborated – approach to minor's non-refoulement claim judicial review application when not legally represented – Order 80, rule 2 of the RHC – children claimants of tender age unable to make meaningful submissions – non-refoulement claims by children are separate claims requiring consideration of personal circumstances – ill-treatment not reaching level of persecution for adult may do so for child – Fabio Arlyn Timogan and Re Jasvir Singh – whether Board properly considered 2nd applicant's claim with high standard of fairness – 2nd applicant born in Hong Kong, never been to Bangladesh, claim dependent on 1st applicant – no child-specific grounds not advanced to Board – high standard of fairness achieved by Board – application for extension of time for 1st applicant refused as futile – application for 2nd applicant also refused as intended judicial review has no arguable merit – non-compliance with Order 80, rule 2 treated as mere irregularity – summons dismissed – order under Order 59, rule 2A(8) of the RHC that determination may not be reconsidered at oral hearing.
Legal issues: Extension of time to appeal refusal of leave to apply for judicial review (1st applicant) · Approach to a minor's non-refoulement judicial review application when not legally represented (2nd applicant) · Whether the 2nd applicant's non-refoulement claim was properly dealt with by the Board
Outcome: Application for extension of time to appeal refused; summons dismissed for both applicants.
Cited by 15 cases · Cites 12 cases