ANTONYTHASAN SAJEETH PIRASANTH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

ANTONYTHASAN SAJEETH PIRASANTH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

The court refused to extend time because the applicant offered no explanation for a 20‑day delay and his intended challenge lacked reasonably arguable merits; accordingly there was no prospect of success and leave was dismissed.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 3953
Parties
Applicant: Antonythasan Sajeeth Pirasanth; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 September 2025
Case Number
HCAL1625/2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Extension of Time and Dismissal of Leave Application
Outcome
Extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and Ill Treatment, Judicial Review, Extension of Time, Credibility Assessment, Country of Origin Information
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Asylum and Non Refoulement Non Refoulement Torture and Ill Treatment Judicial Review +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Antonythasan Sajeeth Pirasanth

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Extension of Time and Dismissal of Leave Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether time should be extended under Order 53 r 4(1) for a 20‑day delay
  2. 2 Whether the intended judicial review claim has a reasonably arguable prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the Board/Director made errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality amounting to grounds for judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to extend time because the applicant offered no explanation for a 20‑day delay and his intended challenge lacked reasonably arguable merits; accordingly there was no prospect of success and leave was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.

Orders

  • Extension of time for the application for leave to apply for Judicial Review of the decision of Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 17 April 2020 is refused.
  • The application for leave to apply for Judicial Review is dismissed.