RE VILLANUEVA REGGIE CAYANAN AND ANOTHER

RE VILLANUEVA REGGIE CAYANAN AND ANOTHER

The application for extension of time was refused because the applicants showed a substantial unexplained delay of seven weeks, failed to provide corroborating reasons for the delay, and the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success as no error in the Board's conclusion that the withdrawal was valid (and thus rendered the Board functus officio) nor error in the refusal of leave was properly identified; therefore extension would be futile.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 1127
Parties
1st Applicant: Villanueva Reggie Cayanan; 2nd Applicant: Villanueva Gienish Kaur
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 May 2021
Case Number
HCAL817/2018
Procedural Posture
Extension of Time to Appeal Against Refusal of Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Summons Hearing and Decision Refusing Extension
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused; summons dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Functus Officio, Procedural Fairness, Irrationality, Withdrawal of Appeal, Torture Claims Appeal Board
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Immigration Law Judicial Review Extension of Time Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Functus Officio Procedural Fairness +3 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Villanueva Reggie Cayanan

1st Applicant

Villanueva Gienish Kaur

2nd Applicant

Procedural Posture

Extension of Time to Appeal Against Refusal of Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Summons Hearing and Decision Refusing Extension

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant extension of time to appeal against refusal of leave
  2. 2 Whether applicants provided a satisfactory explanation for a 7‑week delay
  3. 3 Whether the intended appeal has a reasonable prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time was refused because the applicants showed a substantial unexplained delay of seven weeks, failed to provide corroborating reasons for the delay, and the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success as no error in the Board's conclusion that the withdrawal was valid (and thus rendered the Board functus officio) nor error in the refusal of leave was properly identified; therefore extension would be futile.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused; summons dismissed

Orders

  • Refuse extension of time to file appeal against the decision dated 22 September 2020
  • Dismiss the applicants' summons dated 23 November 2020