AJ v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

AJ v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant delayed over four years without a reasonable or timely explanation, failed to provide or update a reliable address for service resulting in returned documents, did not demonstrate any arguable merit or real prospect of success in the intended appeal, and allowing the appeal would cause prejudice to public administration; therefore the summons was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 3007
Parties
Applicant: AT; 1st Respondent: Director of Immigration; 2nd Respondent: Gerard Paul Muttrie, Member of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 October 2016
Case Number
HCAL165/2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review; Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Against Refusal of Leave / Decision on Summons by Paper Disposal Refusing Extension of Time to Appeal
Outcome
Summons dismissed; application for leave to appeal out of time refused.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Non Refoulement, Service of Documents, Delay and Prejudice, Duty to Provide Address
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Immigration Law Constitutional Law Procedural Law Extension of Time Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Non Refoulement Service of Documents +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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AT

Applicant

Director of Immigration

1st Respondent

Gerard Paul Muttrie, Member of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review; Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Against Refusal of Leave / Decision on Summons by Paper Disposal Refusing Extension of Time to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant extension of time to appeal against refusal to extend time to apply for leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for delay of over four years
  3. 3 Whether the intended appeal had a real prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant delayed over four years without a reasonable or timely explanation, failed to provide or update a reliable address for service resulting in returned documents, did not demonstrate any arguable merit or real prospect of success in the intended appeal, and allowing the appeal would cause prejudice to public administration; therefore the summons was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed; application for leave to appeal out of time refused.

Orders

  • Summons dismissed with no order as to costs