Re Pattini Kuttige Sampath Thushara Nonis
Read the full judgment text of CACV 49/2013 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 4 September 2013 before Hon Lam VP, Yuen JA and McWalters J.
Civil appeal – judicial review – refusal of leave to apply for judicial review – challenge to decision of Torture Claims Appeal Board – appeal struck out for want of prosecution – applicant acting in person – failure to comply with Registrar's directions for preparation of appeal bundle – multiple extensions of time granted – failure to respond to court correspondence – failure to attend hearing despite notice – whether appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution – whether applicant demonstrated interest in prosecuting appeal – court dismissed appeal for want of prosecution – it is wrong to leave an appeal outstanding where the applicant has not discharged his responsibility in prosecuting it
Legal issues: Dismissal of appeal for want of prosecution due to non-compliance with court directions
Outcome: Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
Cited by 7 cases
|
CACV 49/2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 49 OF 2013 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 17 OF 2013) ________________________
________________________
________________ JUDGMENT ________________ Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.In this appeal, the Applicant seeks to appeal against the refusal of Anthony Chan J [“the Judge”] to grant him leave to apply for judicial review to challenge the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board. The Judge gave his decision on 1 March 2013. Reasons for such refusal were set out in Form CALL-1 of the same date. 2.The Notice of Appeal was lodged by the Applicant on 14 March 2013. 3.On 14 March 2013, the Registrar of Civil Appeals gave directions for the preparation of appeal bundle. According to those directions, the Applicant should submit the bundle to the Registrar for approval. 4.On 28 March 2013, the Applicant wrote to the court to seek more time for the preparation of appeal bundle. He did not give any reason why more time is necessary. Since it is an appeal against the ex parte refusal of leave, it should not be difficult for the bundle to be prepared even though the Applicant acted by himself. 5.On 5 April 2013, the Registrar granted an extension of time up to 11 April 2013 for the bundle to be submitted. The Applicant was notified by letter dated 5 April 2013. 6.On 16 April 2013, noting that the Applicant had failed to comply with that direction, the Registrar again wrote to the Applicant reminding him to comply with it promptly. 7.Again the Applicant did not respond. On 26 April 2013, the Registrar directed that the Applicant to submit the bundle within 14 days failing which the papers shall be placed before the Court of Appeal for direction whether the appeal should be dismissed. 8.The Applicant did not respond to that direction nor did he submit any bundle. The file was therefore passed to a justice of appeal for direction. 9.On 22 May 2013, Lam JA directed as follows:
10.The Applicant did not respond to such direction nor did he give any explanation for his repeated defaults. 11.On 31 July 2013, the court informed the Applicant that the matter will be listed for hearing and asked the Applicant to attend the office of the Deputy Clerk of Court on 7 August for fixing a hearing date. 12.The Applicant did not attend the office of the clerk on 7 August. A hearing date of 4 September 2013 was fixed. The Applicant was informed of the hearing date by a Notice of Hearing on 13 August 2013. 13.On 4 September 2013, the Applicant did not appear at the hearing. 14.Despite ample opportunities being given to him, the Applicant did not see fit to comply with the directions of the court in the preparation for the hearing of the appeal. Nor did he offer any explanation for such defaults. Actually he did not even respond to correspondence from the court for the purpose of the appeal. He did not attend the hearing on 4 September despite he had been informed that his appeal could be dismissed for want of prosecution. 15.In the circumstances, it is clear that the Applicant is no longer interested in proceeding with the appeal. 16.It is wrong to leave an appeal outstanding when the Applicant did not discharge his responsibility in prosecuting the same. We order the appeal be dismissed for want of prosecution.
Applicant acting in person, absent. |