Read the full judgment text of CAMP 95/2024 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 20 December 2024 before Hon G Lam JA and Chow JA.
Civil procedure – judicial review – non-refoulement claim – extension of time to appeal – applicant for judicial review withdraws application – whether court should extend time to appeal – whether intended appeal has real prospects of success – Vietnamese national entered Hong Kong illegally and lodged non-refoulement claim based on threat from creditor over unpaid loan – Director and Torture Claims Appeal Board rejected claim on grounds of private monetary dispute and viable internal relocation – applicant filed Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review but later sought to withdraw application stating he felt safe to return to Vietnam – Deputy High Court Judge dismissed the application following Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471 at [19] – first extension of time application filed over 3 months out of time with no explanation – Judge made no order on extension application – renewed application before Court of Appeal – First issue: whether extension of time should be granted absent explanation for delay – No, as the applicant provided no explanation for the substantial delay and the court will not extend time without real prospects of success in the intended appeal – Second issue: whether the Judge erred by not assessing the merits of the underlying judicial review – No, the dismissal was based on the applicant's own withdrawal and it was not necessary to adjudicate on the merits – Third issue: whether the intended appeal has real prospects of success – No, the applicant failed to advance any grounds showing how the Judge erred in dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review – role of Court of Appeal is not to rehear the judicial review application but to assess the grounds of appeal – application for extension of time refused; summons dated 28 May 2024 dismissed
Legal issues: Whether extension of time to appeal should be granted absent any explanation for the delay · Whether the Judge erred by not assessing the merits of the underlying judicial review · Whether the intended appeal has real prospects of success
Outcome: Application for extension of time to appeal refused; summons dated 28 May 2024 dismissed.
Cited by 191 cases · Cites 4 cases