Lipi Najnin Sultana v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

CAMP 111/2025, [2025] HKCA1020

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 2667 & [2025] HKCFI 2129

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 111 OF 2025

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2476 OF 2020)

____________________

BETWEEN

____________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon Anthony Chan JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

1.This is the Applicant’s Summons dated 10 June 2025 (“Summons”).  The Summons referred to (a) the dismissal by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“Judge”) on 3 October 2024 of the Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Decision”); and (b) the dismissal by the Judge on 3 June 2025 of the Applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the Leave Decision.

2.It is clear from the Applicant’s Affirmation dated 10 June 2025 (“Affirmation”) filed in support of the Summons that this application is for extension of time to appeal against the Leave Decision ([2024] HKCFI 2667). 

3.The intended judicial review concerned the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 9 November 2020 by which the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 28 December 2018 rejecting her non-refoulement claim was dismissed. 

4.The Applicant had 14 days from the date of the Order dismissing her leave application (3 October 2024) to appeal against the Leave Decision (see Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A (“RHC”)).  The 14-day period expired on 17 October 2024.  The Applicant filed her summons below for extension of time on 18 February 2025.  She was out of time by 4 months.

5.By a Decision dated 3 June 2025, ([2025] HKCFI 2129), the Judge dismissed the extension of time application of the Applicant (“EOT Decision”).  It was held that the delay of 4 months was substantial and inordinate.  The Applicant explained that after receiving a copy of the Leave Decision, she wanted to return home.  She subsequently changed her mind because she was informed by her family in Bangladesh that the risk she feared (getting killed by her enemies) still existed and she decided to appeal against the Leave Decision, but by then she was out of time to do so. 

6.The Judge took the view that a change of mind was no justification for failing to comply with legal procedures, and he was not satisfied that the Applicant had provided a good or valid reason for the serious delay.  More importantly, the Applicant had failed to advance in her summons, supporting affirmation or at the hearing before the Judge any proper grounds of appeal or any particulars of error in the Leave Decision or any reasonable argument that the Leave Decision was unfair or unreasonable as she contended.  In the premises, the Judge saw no prospect of success in the Applicant’s intended appeal, and the extension of time application was accordingly dismissed.

7.Having considered the documents, this court is of the view that it is appropriate to determine this application on paper without a hearing pursuant to Order 59, rule 14A of the RHC.

8.Despite the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeal, which was acknowledged by the Applicant on 10 June 2025, that she should lodge written submissions in support of the Summons on or before 24 June 2025, no submissions have been lodged by the Applicant. 

9.It is trite that in deciding whether to extend time to appeal, the court will take into account the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the chances of success of the intended appeal, and the degree of prejudice to the other party if an extension of time is granted.  The prospect of success of an intended appeal is important because the court will not grant an extension of time for a hopeless appeal: Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702, at [19].

10.There is nothing in the Summons or the Affirmation which explains the delay of 4 months.  If the Applicant is relying upon the same explanation advanced before the Judge, this court agrees with the Judge that change of mind is not a valid explanation. 

11.We regret to say that notwithstanding the findings in the EOT Decision, save for the assertions in the Summons that the Applicant does not agree with the Leave Decision, it is unfair and that she has severe problem in her home country, there is no proposed ground of appeal or anything before this court to demonstrate the merits of the Applicant’s intended appeal.  This is a fatal deficiency. 

12.For completeness, this court has considered the Leave Decision carefully and is unable to see any arguable ground of appeal against the same. 

13.In the premises, the Summons is dismissed with no order as to costs. 

The applicant acting in person