PHAM THI LIEN AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

PHAM THI LIEN AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Extension of time was refused because the applicants gave no valid reason for the 11-day delay, failed to provide draft grounds or identify any error in the refusal decision and therefore demonstrated no real prospect of success, making an extension futile.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 835
Parties
1st Applicant: Pham Thi Lien; 2nd Applicant: Pham Quang Minh; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 March 2024
Case Number
HCAL1088/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application to Extend Time to Appeal Against Refusal of Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused and summons dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Prospect of Success, Delay
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Refugee and Non Refoulement Law Civil Procedure Extension of Time Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Procedural Fairness Prospect of Success +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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pham Thi Lien

1st Applicant

Pham Quang Minh

2nd Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application to Extend Time to Appeal Against Refusal of Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time to appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the applicants provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay
  3. 3 Whether the intended appeal has a realistic prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time was refused because the applicants gave no valid reason for the 11-day delay, failed to provide draft grounds or identify any error in the refusal decision and therefore demonstrated no real prospect of success, making an extension futile.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused and summons dismissed

Orders

  • Refuse the applicants' application for extension of time to appeal; dismiss the summons