DOUCARE ADAMA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

DOUCARE ADAMA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Extension of time was refused because the applicant provided no explanation for the delay, failed to discharge the duty to maintain a reliable address for service, and the underlying proposed appeal lacked reasonable prospects of success; balancing the statutory factors, it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2249
Parties
Applicant: Doucare Adama; 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
8 October 2020
Case Number
HCAL526/2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave to Apply) Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Refusal of Leave
Outcome
Summons dismissed; extension of time refused
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Non Refoulement, Convention Against Torture, Procedural Time Limits, Address for Service
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Extension of Time Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Non Refoulement Convention Against Torture Procedural Time Limits +1 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Doucare Adama

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave to Apply) Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Refusal of Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant extension of time to appeal a refusal of leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided a satisfactory explanation for delay
  3. 3 Whether the intended appeal has a reasonable prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time was refused because the applicant provided no explanation for the delay, failed to discharge the duty to maintain a reliable address for service, and the underlying proposed appeal lacked reasonable prospects of success; balancing the statutory factors, it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed; extension of time refused

Orders

  • The applicant's summons dated 29 July 2020 be dismissed.