Ab v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1376/2018

[2026] HKCFI 5429

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 1376 OF 2018

______________

BETWEEN

______________

_____________________

DECISION

_____________________

Introduction

1.This is the Applicant’s application by summons dated 25 August 2026 for extension of time to appeal the order of this Court dated 14 April 2026 (the “Order”) refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review. 

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.  By 14 April 2026, the time to appeal has expired. 

3.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 first three factors are resolved against the grant of extension, there is no need to consider the fourth factor.

Discussion

4.The application for leave to appeal was made three months and 28 days out of time.  In the context of a 14 days’ period of appeal, the delay is very inordinate.  In his supporting affirmation filed in support of his application, the Applicant gave the following explanation for the delay:

“I cant (sic) recive (sic) my paper right time only for that rightime (sic) I cant file my case how I can ricve (sic) my paper and come now come to time me case.”

The Applicant’s statement is not entirely comprehensible.  Obviously, he had received the Order.  Read in the most favourable light, he seemed to submit that he received the Order so late that the time to appeal had expired or was near expiration.  That is just a bare allegation which falls far short of explaining why he should be relieved of the consequence of his neglect.  To enable him to present a proper application for extension of time, directions were given to him to file an affirmation or a statement within 14 days stating (a) the reasons why it took him more than three months to apply for extension of time to appeal; (b) the date when and the circumstances under which the Order was received or brought to his notice; and (c) the grounds of the proposed appeal.  He was also informed that his application will be determined on paper after 21 days from the date of the directions, whether the above directions have been complied with. 

5.As at the date of this decision, no response has been received from the Applicant.  In the absence of a proper explanation for the delay, there is no basis on which the Court may exercise its discretion to grant him extension. In the absence of information about the time when and the circumstances under which the Order was received, the Court could not assess the reasonableness of his explanation for the delay.  In the absence of a statement of the grounds of appeal there is no information on which the Court may assess the prospect of success of his proposed appeal.  In view of the very inordinate delay and the absence of an arguable ground with prospect of success, the application for extension of time is refused.

The applicant is not represented