Re Parussalla Gamaralalage Thanuja Darshani Amarapali

HCAL 2833/2018

[2021] HKCFI 3220

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO  2833 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

Before:  Deputy High Court Judge Suffiad in Chambers

Date of Decision:  3 November 2021

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

The application

1.The Applicant, by summons filed on 23 June 2021, applies for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To (“the Court”) given on 2^nd June 2021 refusing her leave for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board in dismissing her appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration refusing her non-refoulement claim protection.

2.The 14 day period for the Applicant to file her appeal against the decision of the Court ended on 16 June 2021 and hence she was 7 days late with her intended appeal.

3.In considering whether to extend time for appealing against a decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, a 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 extension of time were granted.

4.In the Applicant’s case, the delay was of 7 days.  She explained in a handwritten letter to the Court (received by the High Court on 7 July 2021) that the delay was due to the fact that her baby had a running nose and was not feeling well and that she has no legal knowledge and no money to engage a lawyer.

5.The court record shows that the decision of the Court together with the order was sent on the same day the decision was given to the last reported address of the Applicant (being the same address given in her summons) which was not returned to the High Court as undelivered post.

6.As for the prospect of the intended appeal, the Applicant has not put forward any proper or valid draft or proposed grounds of appeal.  Neither has the Applicant alluded to any particulars of any error in law in the decision of the Court or why it can be said that the decision of the Court was unfair or unreasonable either in her summons or in the affirmation in support.

7.In Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702, the Court of Appeal held:

“19. The prospect of success of the intended appeal is important: the court will not grant extension for a hopeless appeal to be pursued, see Re Rahman Wasif [2019] HKCA 299 at [13]; Re Kpamou Gbotoi Bernard [2019] HKCA 168; and Re Irshad Muhammad [2018] HKCA 864 at [16].”

8.This being an application to extend time to appeal against the decision of the Court, it is for the Applicant to show that there is a reasonably arguable appeal.  This she has not done.

9.In the premises, and for the reasons given, it would be futile to extend time for what would appear to be a hopeless appeal.  Accordingly, I refuse the Applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of the Court and dismiss the summons.

The Applicant is unrepresented