IFTIKHAR ALI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

IFTIKHAR ALI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

The court refused the application for extension of time because the applicant failed to provide a reasonable and prompt explanation for the delay, breached his duty to give a correct address for service, and his underlying judicial review had no arguable merit; therefore it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension and the summons was dismissed.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2388
Parties
Applicant: Iftikhar Ali; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Respondent: Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 September 2019
Case Number
HCAL932/2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative) / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal; Decision on Summons
Outcome
Summons dismissed; extension of time to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Extension of Time to Appeal, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Procedure for Appeal, Service and Address for Correspondence
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Judicial Review Non Refoulement Extension of Time to Appeal Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Procedure for Appeal +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Iftikhar Ali

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative) / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal; Decision on Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant an extension of time to appeal a refusal of leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for delay and complied with duty to provide an address for service
  3. 3 Whether the underlying judicial review has sufficient prospects of success to justify extension

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused the application for extension of time because the applicant failed to provide a reasonable and prompt explanation for the delay, breached his duty to give a correct address for service, and his underlying judicial review had no arguable merit; therefore it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension and the summons was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed; extension of time to appeal refused

Orders

  • The applicant’s summons dated 23 August 2019 is dismissed.
  • No extension of time to appeal is granted.