Re Shafique

CACV 565/2020

[2021] HKCA 525

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 565 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 404/2018)

____________________

____________________

Before:  Hon Lam VP and Au JA in Court

Date of Judgment:  27 April 2021

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.The applicant filed a notice of appeal on 20 October 2020 seeking to appeal against the decision of DHCJ Bruno Chan of 20 January 2020. The Judge refused to grant leave to him the apply for judicial review.

2.Since the appeal is brought outside the 14-day time limit under Order 53 Rule 3(4), he has to seek extension of time to do so.

3.He obtained an extension of time from the Judge on 27 August 2020.  By that order, the Judge gave him 14 days from the date of the order to bring an appeal.  No consideration was given to the merit of his intended appeal in that decision since the delay was partly occasioned by the General Adjournment Period of the court.

4.As we have seen, he did not appeal within the extended time.  Thus, he need to have a further extension of time before an appeal can be properly brought.  In such application, he would have to explain for his further delay and the court will also assess the merit of his proposed appeal.

5.The Registrar of Civil Appeals directed repeatedly to the applicant that he should make the application for further extension of time before the Court of Appeal.  Despite such directions on 30 November 2020 and 7 January 2021, the applicant did not do so.

6.An appeal brought out of time is incompetent and will be struck out.

7.In our judgment, sufficient reminders have been given to the applicant for taking out an application for further extension of time.  His failure to do so is evidence that he has no intention to prosecute the appeal in accordance with the directions of the court.

8.We see no good reason why we should not strike out the appeal as being incompetent and leave the applicant to make a proper application for further extension of time afresh by way of CAMP proceedings. If he could obtain such further extension, he could bring a fresh appeal. 

9.We therefore order that this appeal be struck out and dismissed on the ground that it is incompetent.

The applicant acting in person