Pham Van Chung v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

HCAL 1035/2021

[2026] HKCFI 4609

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1035 OF 2021

____________

BETWEEN

____________

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

Background

1.By way of summons filed on 29 June 2026 (“the Summons”), the applicant applies for an extension of time to appeal against my order made on 29 April 2026, which dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 7 July 2021.

2.Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A, stipulates that “Where an application for leave 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”.

3.In Re Li Jing [2015] 2 HKLRD 933, it was held that the time for lodging an appeal against the refusal of granting leave to apply for judicial review started to run from the date of the making of the order, not from the date when the sealed order was issued, nor from the date when the sealed order was mailed, and no account should be taken of the fact that the applicant received the sealed order late (see also Re Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226).

4.As my order was made on 29 April 2026, the last day for the applicant to lodge an appeal was on 13 May 2026. The time for appealing against my order has therefore expired, and the applicant requires leave from this court to appeal out of time.

The applicable law

5.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 (see Jagg Singh v Torture Claims Appeal Board and another [2020] HKCA 844).

6.However, the crucial consideration in such an application is whether the applicant can show that there is a reasonable prospect of success in the intended judicial review (see Re Gurung Min Bahadur, supra), and the court will not grant extension for a hopeless appeal to be pursued (see Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702).

Discussion

7.In his supporting affirmation dated 29 June 2026, the applicant explained his delay in lodging the appeal by saying that he had not received the court’s letter, he did not speak English or Chinese, he had to seek help from his friends to submit his appeal to this court and it was inconvenient for him to file the appeal in the appeal period.

8.At the hearing of the Summons on 6 August 2026, the applicant was absent and hence he did not explain his delay further. The applicant’s explanation in his supporting affirmation is clearly not satisfactory, as it was just a bare allegation that he did not receive the court’s letter without giving any reason why it was so.

9.The applicant did not provide any ground for his intended appeal in the Summons or his supporting affirmation. Since he was absent at the hearing, there was also no ground of appeal provided by him at the hearing.

10.For this application to be successful, the applicant must demonstrate that this court had made errors of law or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before this court or was otherwise plainly wrong (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524).

11.The applicant failed to demonstrate any of the above. Hence, there is simply no valid ground for the intended appeal or the intended judicial review.

12.In the circumstances, there is no satisfactory explanation for the applicant’s delay in lodging the intended appeal and there is no reasonable prospect of success in the intended judicial review. I am not prepared to grant any extension of time for the applicant to pursue such a hopeless appeal.

Conclusion

13.For reasons aforesaid, the Summons is dismissed.

The applicant being absent