A v. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS BOARD

A v. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS BOARD

Assuming jurisdiction to extend time, the court refused the extension because the delay was short but there was no arguable ground of appeal: the Applicant had unduly delayed, advanced no substantive affirmation or draft grounds, and her arguments (including that the AAB lacked power to interpret the statute) lacked merit; accordingly the summons for extension was dismissed.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 2402
Parties
Applicant: A; Putative Respondent: Administrative Appeals Board
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
1 November 2018
Case Number
HCAL221/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Apply for Leave to Appeal Against Refusal of Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision in Chambers on Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Applicant's summons dated 12 October 2018 dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Judicial Review, Personal Data Protection, Res Judicata, Tribunal Powers to Interpret Statute
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Data Protection Civil Procedure Extension of Time Leave to Appeal Judicial Review Personal Data Protection +2 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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Applicant

Administrative Appeals Board

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to Apply for Leave to Appeal Against Refusal of Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision in Chambers on Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court has power to extend time to apply to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal an interlocutory Order under Order 59
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant's proposed appeal is reasonably arguable
  3. 3 Whether the Administrative Appeals Board had power to interpret provisions of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance or was required to seek the court's opinion first

Ratio Decidendi

Assuming jurisdiction to extend time, the court refused the extension because the delay was short but there was no arguable ground of appeal: the Applicant had unduly delayed, advanced no substantive affirmation or draft grounds, and her arguments (including that the AAB lacked power to interpret the statute) lacked merit; accordingly the summons for extension was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Applicant's summons dated 12 October 2018 dismissed

Orders

  • Summons dismissed with no order as to costs