RE HARJEET SINGH

RE HARJEET SINGH

The court held that a two‑week delay is not necessarily insignificant and, given the applicant's unchanged address, the explanation of non‑receipt was unsatisfactory; therefore an extension of time should not be granted under the circumstances.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 187
Parties
Applicant: Harjeet Singh
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 January 2019
Case Number
HCAL46/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Extension of Time Application / Decision
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Service of Court Documents, Delay, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
en
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Civil Procedure Extension of Time Service of Court Documents Delay Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harjeet Singh

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Extension of Time Application / Decision

  1. 1 Whether a two‑week delay in taking steps could be regarded as insignificant
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's explanation that he did not receive the court order/decision was satisfactory
  3. 3 Whether unchanged residential address undermines the applicant's claim of non‑service

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that a two‑week delay is not necessarily insignificant and, given the applicant's unchanged address, the explanation of non‑receipt was unsatisfactory; therefore an extension of time should not be granted under the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused

Orders

  • Application for extension of time refused