RIRIS TANTI WILUJENG AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

RIRIS TANTI WILUJENG AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Delay of six weeks was substantial and inordinate; applicants failed to provide documentary evidence to justify late receipt and failed to identify any arguable error or present draft grounds of appeal; therefore there was no reasonable prospect of success and granting an extension would be futile — extension refused and summons dismissed.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 2319
Parties
1st Applicant: RIRIS TANTI WILUJENG; 2nd Applicant: IBRAHIM SADAQAT INSAN; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 September 2024
Case Number
HCAL285/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Extension of Time to Appeal / Hearing and Decision on Summons for Extension of Time; Application Refused and Summons Dismissed
Outcome
Summons for extension of time to appeal refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Appealability, Prospect of Success
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Human Rights Non Refoulement Extension of Time Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Procedural Fairness Appealability +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

RIRIS TANTI WILUJENG

1st Applicant

IBRAHIM SADAQAT INSAN

2nd Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Extension of Time to Appeal / Hearing and Decision on Summons for Extension of Time; Application Refused and Summons Dismissed

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 a six-week delay
  3. 3 Whether there is a reasonable prospect of success in the intended appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Delay of six weeks was substantial and inordinate; applicants failed to provide documentary evidence to justify late receipt and failed to identify any arguable error or present draft grounds of appeal; therefore there was no reasonable prospect of success and granting an extension would be futile — extension refused and summons dismissed.

Court Disposition

Summons for extension of time to appeal refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Refuse extension of time to appeal against the decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review.
  • Dismiss the summons filed on 4 July 2024.