Harjit Singh v. Mr. Law Man Ching, Vio and Others

HCAL 2393/2024

[2025] HKCFI 1038

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 2393 OF 2024

________________________

________________

_________________

D E C I S I O N

_________________

A.  Introduction

1.By my previous Decision dated 2 January 2025 [2025] HKCFI 100, I dismissed the Applicant’s application made by his Form 86 dated 6 December 2024. 

2.Though on its face apparently seeking a writ of habeas corpus, such an application was fundamentally misconceived where the Applicant was not detained at all, let alone arguably unlawfully.  I dismissed the application in that regard for that reason. 

3.If it was intended to be an application seeking leave to apply for judicial review, I held that, in so far as the matters set out in the documents were intelligible at all, no specific public law grounds of review had been identified, contrary to the mandatory requirements of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”) Order 53 rule 3(2).  It also seemed to me that at least significant aspects of the complaint were out of time or stale for judicial review purposes. 

4.Now by summons dated 6 March 2025, supported by his affirmation dated 5 March 2025, the Applicant requests an extension of time for him to appeal from my Decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review. 

5.I see no reason why this application cannot appropriately be dealt with on paper. 

B.  Consideration

6.The summons simply states that the Applicant does not agree with my Decision, and that I did not consider his claim properly, so he requests the Court to scrutinise his problem properly.  The affirmation simply identifies that because it is out of time to appeal, he requests the extension of time and is making the summons for that purpose.  No formulated grounds of appeal are attached to either document.

7.On an application for an extension of time to appeal, the Court will take into account circumstances including at least (1) the length of the delay and therefore the extension sought, (2) the explanation for the delay, and (3) the apparent merits of the proposed appeal. 

8.The 14-day time period for an intended appeal permitted under RHC Order 53 rule 3(4) expired on 16 January 2025, and so the present application is itself approaching two months later.  That is not an insignificant delay. 

9.Notably, there is no real attempt in the documents provided for the present application to explain the reason for the delay, and the failure to take out the application within good time. 

10.As to the potential merits of the proposed appeal, the statement that the Applicant disagrees with the Decision is of little value.  Nor has the Applicant sought to explain why his “claim” was not properly considered.  In fact, the materials attached to the application essentially amount to a repeat of some of the previous materials about his underlying complaint, and a cry for some help.  With respect, those materials do not identify any meritorious grounds of appeal, where it is trite that an appeal is not simply an occasion to re-run the arguments presented before the Court below.

C.  Result

11.In the circumstances, the Applicant has failed to identify good reason why the Court should exercise its discretion to extend the time for his proposed appeal. 

12.Therefore, I dismiss the application made by summons for the extension of time, and I make no order as to costs.