HALDAR BASED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HALDAR BASED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Extension of time was refused because the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay, neglected to update the court with his change of address despite understanding the obligation, received timely notification at the address he provided, and because the underlying judicial review application lacked merit, so extension was not in the interests of justice.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 717
Parties
Applicant: HALDAR BASED; Putative Respondent: TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD; Putative Interested Party: DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 March 2019
Case Number
HCAL951/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Refusal of Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Application for Extension of Time; Decision on Summons
Outcome
Summons dismissed; application for extension of time refused
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Extension of Time, Non Refoulement, Convention Against Torture, Procedural Rules (order 59)
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Judicial Review Extension of Time Non Refoulement Convention Against Torture +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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HALDAR BASED

Applicant

TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Putative Respondent

DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Refusal of Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Application for Extension of Time; Decision on Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant extension of time to appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay and complied with obligations to notify change of address
  3. 3 Whether the underlying judicial review application has sufficient merit to justify extension of time

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time was refused because the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay, neglected to update the court with his change of address despite understanding the obligation, received timely notification at the address he provided, and because the underlying judicial review application lacked merit, so extension was not in the interests of justice.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed; application for extension of time refused

Orders

  • The applicant's summons dated 27 December 2018 is dismissed.