HARDEV SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HARDEV SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Extension of time was refused because the applicant was over ten months late with an unjustified and serious delay and had failed to identify any arguable grounds or provide draft grounds of appeal, so there was no reasonable prospect of success making extension futile.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 652
Parties
Applicant: Hardev Singh; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 February 2025
Case Number
HCAL2482/2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Refusal of Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Summons to Extend Time to Appeal
Outcome
Application for extension of time to appeal refused; summons dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Delay, Service of Decision
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Immigration Law Constitutional Law Judicial Review Non Refoulement Extension of Time Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Procedural Fairness +2 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hardev Singh

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 / Decision on Summons to Extend Time to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time to appeal a refusal of leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has given a satisfactory explanation for a delay of over 10 months
  3. 3 Whether the intended appeal has any prospect of success given absence of draft grounds

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time was refused because the applicant was over ten months late with an unjustified and serious delay and had failed to identify any arguable grounds or provide draft grounds of appeal, so there was no reasonable prospect of success making extension futile.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time to appeal refused; summons dismissed

Orders

  • Application for extension of time to appeal refused
  • Summons dismissed