Le Thi Phuong v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 3834/2019

[2025] HKCFI 4395

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 3834 OF 2019

________________________

________________

_________________

D E C I S I O N

_________________

1.By my decision dated 14 April 2025, I refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) dated 13 December 2019 which refused the Applicant’s non-refoulement protection claim.

2.By a summons issued on 28 May 2025, the Applicant seeks extension of time to appeal against my above decision. As the 14-day appeal period under O.53, r.3(4) of the RHC expired on 28 April 2025, the Applicant is out of time in his intended appeal by 30 days.

3.The applicable principles are trite: the 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 (see Re Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226 and Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346).

4.The Applicant was absent at the hearing of 1 September 2025. On court record, the Notice of Hearing dated 4 August 2025 was sent to the Applicant at the same address he stated in his current summons and affirmation. It also transpired on court record that the phone contact provided to the court was not the Applicant’s own number but her friend’s. Information on the hearing was provided to her friend contacted through that number. If the consequence of any delay occasioned by the ineffectiveness of correspondence address falls on the shoulder of the litigant (see Re Ahmed Syed Rafiq [2018] HKCA 178), then there is no reason why the consequence occasioned by ineffective contact number should not be the same. I therefore see no reason to not proceed in the Applicant’s absence.

5.The delay in the present case was rather lengthy and the only explanation offered on affirmation was the assertion that the Applicant did not receive any notification of the decision by mail. As explained above, the consequence of such ineffectiveness falls on her shoulder, not the court’s.

6.Further and more importantly, there is nothing in either the present summons or the supporting affirmation to articulate any proposed grounds of appeal, or point to any particular error in the decision she seeks to appeal against. As such I fail to see any prospect of success in her intended appeal.

7.In the premises, it would be pointless to extend the time for the Applicant’s intended appeal. I therefore dismiss the application.

The Applicant was unrepresented and did not appear