Read the full judgment text of CAMP 31/2024 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 22 August 2024 before Hon Chu VP and Barma JA.
Civil procedure – extension of time to appeal – judicial review – non-refoulement claims – composite claim by mother and minor child – whether time should be extended where intended appeal has no prospect of success – applicant's claim based on fear of former boyfriend in the Philippines – Filipino national entered Hong Kong as foreign domestic helper – overstayed after premature contract termination – surrendered to Immigration Department – joint non-refoulement protection claim by mother and newborn son – claim founded on alleged physical abuse by mother's former partner Allan and his threats to kill applicants if returned to Philippines – Director of Immigration rejected claims on torture risk, Hong Kong Bill of Rights Articles 3 and 2 risk, and persecution risk grounds – Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissed appeal as composite claim – whether to grant extension of time for leave to apply for judicial review – length of delay, reasons for delay, prospect of intended appeal, and prejudice to respondent are the relevant considerations – 9-day delay not substantial – most important factor is merit of intended appeal – applicant must show at least reasonable prospect of success – when delay inexcusable, higher threshold of real prospect of success applies – no grounds advanced in support of intended appeal – whether minor's claim requires separate assessment from parent's claim – claim derivative of parent's claim rejected by Board on credibility and risk thresholds – whether there are child-specific non-refoulement grounds not advanced to Board owing to lack of legal representation – Order 80 rule 2 of the Rules of the High Court requires legal representation of minor – non-compliance treated as mere irregularity under Order 2 of the RHC not nullifying proceedings – 1st applicant identified no separate risks for 2nd applicant – application for extension of time dismissed as futile.
Legal issues: Whether to grant extension of time to appeal refusal of leave to apply for judicial review · Whether the 2nd applicant's (minor) claim requires separate consideration from the 1st applicant's claim · Effect of non-compliance with Order 80 rule 2 on proceedings
Outcome: Application for extension of time to appeal dismissed; the applicants' intended appeal against the Judge's dismissal of the application for leave to apply for judicial review has no prospect of success.
Cited by 15 cases · Cites 10 cases