Maya Fitriani Supandi v Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1141/2022

[2026] HKCFI 3949

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1141 OF 2022

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

Introduction

1.This is the Applicant’s application by summons filed on 3 July 2026 for an extension of time to appeal the decision of this Court dated 2 April 2026 (the “Decision”) refusing her application for leave to apply for judicial review. A hearing was conducted on 6 July 2026. The Applicant appeared in person.

2.In Jagg Singh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office[1], the Court of Appeal held, at [10], that in considering whether to extend time for appealing against 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 prospects of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted.

Length of the delay and reasons for delay

3.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.

4.The time to appeal, therefore, expired on 16 April 2026. The delay was around 2.5 months, which is substantial.

5.In her supporting affidavit, the Applicant alleged that the delay was caused by her change of address. At the hearing, however, she admitted that she only changed her address in June 2026, which was before the expiry of the time to appeal. She then said that she did not check her mail box in April 2026. I do not accept the Applicant’s explanation, which is new and different from her explanation stated in the supporting affidavit. In any event, I do not consider a failure to check the mail box to be a good reason for the delay.

Prospects of success of the intended appeal

6.The procedural history against which this application arose is as follows. On 23 September 2022, the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dismissed her claim for non-refoulement protection (the “Board’s Decision”). On 24 October 2022, the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review. In refusing her leave application, this Court held, inter alia, that the Board had carefully considered the Applicant’s evidence. The Board’s Decision was comprehensive with adequate reasons. This Court did not find any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision and was not satisfied the Applicant’s intended challenge of the same was reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success. As a result, the Applicant’s leave application was refused.

7.Now the Applicant seeks an extension of time to appeal the Decision. The Applicant’s summons and supporting affidavit, however, do not identify any grounds of appeal. In particular, she has not identified what is wrong, whether of fact or of law, in the Decision. In my view, her intended appeal has no prospects of success.

Prejudice to the respondent

8.As I have held, the Applicant’s intended appeal has no prospects of success. To allow such a challenge to proceed when it is already out of time would only drain the intended respondent’s time and resources unnecessarily and cause prejudice.

Conclusion

9.In view of the substantial delay, the absence of any proper explanation for the delay, the lack of prospects of success in the intended appeal and the prejudice to the intended respondent, the application for an extension of time to appeal is refused.

The applicant was unrepresented and appeared in person.