Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 695/2023

[2026] HKCFI 3347

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 695 OF 2023

____________

BETWEEN
	Warki Nurbaeti Bt Kurdi	1^st Applicant
	Warki Queen Aqila	2^nd Applicant
and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office	Putative Respondent
and
	Director of Immigration	Putative Interested Party

____________

Before:

Deputy High Court Judge To in Chambers

Date of Decision:

12 June 2026

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

Introduction

1.This is the 1^st Applicant’s application by summons filed on 16 April 2026 for extension of time to appeal the order of this Court dated 31 July 2025 (the “Order”) refusing her leave to apply for judicial review (the “leave application”) of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office. This is her second application. Previously, she had been given extension of time until 1 September 2025 to file her appeal, but she did not appeal. Now she is out of time by eight months and three days.

Discussion

2.Under Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, where an application for leave to apply for judicial review is refused by a judge, the applicant may appeal against the judge’s order to the Court of Appeal within 14 days after such order. The Application is eight months and three days out of time. In Jagg Singh and Torture Claims Appeal Board/non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office^{^[1]}, the Court of Appeal held that in considering whether to extend time for appealing a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review, the court will take into account: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted. If the delay is not substantial, it would be readily condoned if there is some credible explanation and an arguable ground of appeal. If the first three factors are resolved against granting leave, there is no need to consider prejudice to the respondent.

3.The delay of more than eight months in an appeal period of 14 days is very substantial, particularly for someone who already had a bite of the cherry. In her summons, the 1^st Applicant acknowledged that she had been given an extension of time but she missed it. To assist her to present a proper application for extension of time, this Court gave her directions on 22 April 2026 to file a statement or affirmation within fourteen days stating: (1) the reasons why it took her more than eight months to make the application; (2) the date when and the circumstances under which the Order sought to be appealed was first received or brought to her notice; and (3) the grounds of her intended appeal. She was also informed that her application for extension of time will be refused if the directions have not been complied with by that time. The 1^st Applicant did not respond.

4.As at the date of issue of this Decision, almost six weeks had lapsed. The inference to be drawn from the Applicants’ failure to respond is that she has no reasonable explanation for the delay, no arguable grounds of appeal and even lacks the will to prosecute her intended appeal. There is no basis on which the Court may exercise its discretion to grant her extension of time. Accordingly, her application is refused.