SIKDAR RATNA AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

SIKDAR RATNA AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was granted and time extended because it was reasonably arguable that the Board's decision was tainted by procedural unfairness (failure to warn the 1st applicant about adverse consequences of delay and to give opportunity to address perceived inconsistencies) and that the Board failed to assess the 2nd applicant's claim separately and with the highest standard of fairness; despite unexplained delay the court exercised discretion to extend time in the interests of fairness.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 5502
Parties
1st Applicant: Sikdar Ratna; 2nd Applicant (minor): Das Anurup; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 December 2025
Case Number
HCAL221/2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non‑refoulement) / Leave Application and Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Leave granted to apply for judicial review and extension of time granted
Legal Topics
Non‑refoulement/asylum, Procedural Fairness (brown V Dunn), Judicial Review Leave and Threshold, Extension of Time/delay, Representation of Minors, Standard of Review on Findings of Fact
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Immigration Law Human Rights Child Law Non‑refoulement/asylum Procedural Fairness (brown V Dunn) Judicial Review Leave and Threshold +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sikdar Ratna

1st Applicant

Das Anurup

2nd Applicant (minor)

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non‑refoulement) / Leave Application and Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board breached procedural fairness by failing to warn applicant about adverse consequences of delay and by failing to invite response to perceived inconsistencies (Brown v Dunn)
  2. 2 Whether the Board failed to make a separate, high‑standard assessment of the minor applicant's non‑refoulement claim and relevant personal circumstances (language difficulty, education)
  3. 3 Whether the court should extend time for a leave application made about three years late

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was granted and time extended because it was reasonably arguable that the Board's decision was tainted by procedural unfairness (failure to warn the 1st applicant about adverse consequences of delay and to give opportunity to address perceived inconsistencies) and that the Board failed to assess the 2nd applicant's claim separately and with the highest standard of fairness; despite unexplained delay the court exercised discretion to extend time in the interests of fairness.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to apply for judicial review and extension of time granted

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review granted out of time
  • Applicants to file and issue an originating summons within 14 days and serve copies and all relevant documents on the Board (respondent) and the Director (interested party)