RE HUSSAIN AZHAR
Extension of time was refused because the applicant failed to provide particulars or documentary evidence to explain a delay of more than two months, which the court regarded as not insignificant.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] HKCFI 2728
- Parties
- Applicant: Hussain Azhar
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 25 November 2019
- Case Number
- HCAL380/2018
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional and Administrative Law (judicial Review) / Decision in Chambers
- Outcome
- Extension of time refused
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Delay in Filing, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Hussain Azhar
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Constitutional and Administrative Law (judicial Review) / Decision in Chambers
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether delay of more than two months is insignificant
- 2 Whether applicant provided sufficient particulars or documentary evidence to explain delay
- 3 Whether extension of time should be granted
Ratio Decidendi
Extension of time was refused because the applicant failed to provide particulars or documentary evidence to explain a delay of more than two months, which the court regarded as not insignificant.
Court Disposition
Extension of time refused
Orders
- Extension of time refused
- Summons dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
bjbj HCAL 380/2018 [2019] HKCFI 2728 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST 380 OF 2018 _____________ RE: Hussain Azhar Applicant _____________ Before: Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan in Chambers Date of Hearing: 25 October 2019 Date of Decision: 25 November 2019 DECISION On 24 hadur [2018] HKCA 226; and Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346. In the Applicant s case, a delay of more than two months cannot be regarded as insignificant, for which he explained in his summons that he did not receive any letter from the court but without providing any further particulars or documentary evidence including how he came to know about the decision if he indeed did not receive any letter from the court when the record shows that the de ~zvmve hCkE hCkE h.FR hCkE gdCkE }vohd hCkE zqzqzmkm h9ie h9ie ht8\ xqlhxq h9ie h9ie h9ie h9ie h9ie h9ie & #$ & #$ [Content_Types].xml _rels/.rels theme/theme/themeManager.xml K Y, sQ}# theme/theme/theme1.xml $O}) Xp90 +PHI| PP yu 9xu5 fs+W VF7H q=. 8}d- qyI@ j!Q_ jyV` |PZ+ T ""p < 4V O&x$ A8>v ;EUC n 8r *~P(5 .}x E /,EE\} theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.rels 5 6?$Q K(M&$R(.1 [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK theme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?> <a:clrMap xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" bg1="lt1" tx1="dk1" bg2="lt2" tx2="dk2" accent1="accent1" accent2="accent2" accent3="accent3" accent4="accent4" accent5="accent5" accent6="accent6" hlink="hlink" folHlink="folHlink"/> &tBL _V5i High Court CACC 283-2007.dot Windows User Microsoft Office Word 8mki Judiciary Hong Kong Title <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?><b:Sources SelectedStyle="\APA.XSL" StyleName="APA" xmlns:b="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" xmlns="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography"></b:Sources> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?> <ds:datastoreItem ds:itemID="{E659456C-0366-4528-A9A3-72FC40244B44}" xmlns:ds="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/customXml"><ds:schemaRefs><ds:schemaRef ds:uri="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography"/></ds:schemaRefs></ds:datastoreItem> Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8