AQEEL MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

AQEEL MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

The summons for leave to appeal out of time was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide any adequate explanation for the delay, was responsible for not receiving court communications by failing to update his address, and the underlying application lacked merit such that granting an extension would not be in the interests of justice.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 716
Parties
Applicant: Aqeel Muhammad; 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
14 March 2019
Case Number
HCAL660/2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal (extension of Time) / Application for Leave to Extend Time to Appeal Refused
Outcome
Summons dated 19 November 2018 dismissed; extension of time to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Judicial Review, Service and Address Obligations, Merits Assessment
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law (non‑refoulement/convention Against Torture) Extension of Time Leave to Appeal Judicial Review Service and Address Obligations Merits Assessment

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aqeel Muhammad

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board (Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office)

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal (extension of Time) / Application for Leave to Extend Time to Appeal Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant extension of time to appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether applicant provided satisfactory explanation for delay and complied with requirement to keep court informed of address
  3. 3 Whether underlying application has sufficient merit to justify extension of time

Ratio Decidendi

The summons for leave to appeal out of time was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide any adequate explanation for the delay, was responsible for not receiving court communications by failing to update his address, and the underlying application lacked merit such that granting an extension would not be in the interests of justice.

Court Disposition

Summons dated 19 November 2018 dismissed; extension of time to appeal refused

Orders

  • Summons dated 19 November 2018 dismissed