Re Dipankar Joshi
Read the full judgment text of CACV 39/2013 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 13 August 2014 before Hon Lam VP, Kwan and Barma JJA.
Civil procedure – appeal – want of prosecution – non-compliance with directions to prepare appeal bundle – failure to respond to court orders – failure to appear at hearing – judicial review of adjudicator's decision on CAT claim – application for leave to apply for judicial review refused by Deputy Judge Lok – Form CALL-1 – self-represented applicant – Whether the court should dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution where the applicant has failed to prosecute the appeal for over a year – Court held that it is wrong to leave an appeal outstanding when the applicant has not discharged his responsibility in prosecuting it – Court gave applicant a final opportunity to comply by 3 September 2014, failing which the appeal would stand dismissed automatically without further hearing – Court of Appeal – Civil Appeal No. 39 of 2013 – appeal from HCAL No. 16 of 2013 – judgment of Lam VP, Kwan and Barma JJA dated 13 August 2014.
Legal issues: Whether to dismiss appeal for want of prosecution due to non-compliance with directions
Outcome: Appeal conditionally dismissed for want of prosecution unless the applicant lodges an appeal bundle for approval by 3 September 2014.
Cited by 13 cases
|
CACV 39/2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 39 OF 2013 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 16 of 2013) _______________________
_______________________ Before : Hon Lam VP, Kwan and Barma JJA Date of Hearing: 13 August 2014 Date of Judgment: 13 August 2014 ______________ JUDGMENT ______________ Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.In this appeal, the Applicant seeks to appeal against the refusal of Deputy Judge Lok [“the Judge”] to grant him leave to apply for judicial review to challenge the decision of an adjudicator of 24 August 2012 over his CAT claim. The Judge gave his decision on 28 February 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 5 March 2013. 3.On 5 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 18 March 2013, the Applicant wrote to the court to seek more time for the preparation of appeal bundle. 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 28 March 2013, the Registrar granted an extension of time up to 17 April 2013 for the bundle to be submitted. The Applicant was notified by letter dated 28 March 2013. 6.The Applicant did not comply with that direction. 7.On 28 October 2013, Lam VP directed as follows:
8.The Applicant did not respond to such direction nor did he take any further step in the prosecution of the appeal. 9.On 31 July 2014, the court informed the Applicant that the matter will be listed for hearing on 13 August to consider the dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. Notice of hearing was sent to the Applicant on the same date. 10.At the hearing on 13 August 2014, the Applicant did not appear. 11.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. Since April 2013, he did not even respond to correspondence from the court for the purpose of the appeal. He did not attend the hearing on 13 August despite he had been informed that his appeal could be dismissed for want of prosecution. 12.In the circumstances, it is apparent that the Applicant is no longer interested in proceeding with the appeal. 13.It is wrong to leave an appeal outstanding when the Applicant did not discharge his responsibility in prosecuting the same. We shall give the Applicant another chance to proceed with the appeal. We order that unless the Applicant lodges an appeal bundle for approval by 3 September 2014, the appeal shall be dismissed for want of prosecution. In other words, if the Applicant does not lodge his bundle by 3 September 2014, his appeal shall be dismissed automatically without any further hearing.
The applicant was not represented and did not appear |
Other judgments that cite this case