JAITEH MOMODOU L. v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

JAITEH MOMODOU L. v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Extension of time refused because the applicant failed to give an acceptable explanation for the delay, failed to attend the hearing despite being personally contacted, and the underlying application for judicial review had no real prospect of success; on balance it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2758
Parties
Applicant: JAITEH MOMODOU L.; Putative Respondent: TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD; Putative Interested Party: DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 October 2020
Case Number
HCAL960/2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review — Extension of Time to Appeal Refusal of Leave / Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time (summons Dated 5 October 2020)
Outcome
Summons dated 5 October 2020 dismissed; extension of time to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Non Refoulement, Convention Against Torture (article 3), Delay and Excuse, Judicial Review Limits
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights (non Refoulement) Procedural Law (appeal/extension of Time) Extension of Time Leave to Appeal Non Refoulement +3 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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JAITEH MOMODOU L.

Applicant

TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Putative Respondent

DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review — Extension of Time to Appeal Refusal of Leave / Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time (summons Dated 5 October 2020)

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 gave acceptable reasons for delay and failed to provide a reliable address
  3. 3 Whether the intended appeal has a reasonable prospect of success or is merely a merits appeal of the underlying non-refoulement decision

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time refused because the applicant failed to give an acceptable explanation for the delay, failed to attend the hearing despite being personally contacted, and the underlying application for judicial review had no real prospect of success; on balance it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension.

Court Disposition

Summons dated 5 October 2020 dismissed; extension of time to appeal refused

Orders

  • Summons dated 5 October 2020 dismissed
  • No extension of time granted to appeal the decision of 5 June 2020