KPS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

KPS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Refusal to extend time: the 1 year 9 month delay was inordinate and not satisfactorily explained; the proposed grounds of appeal lack any real prospect of success because (a) key complaints (BOR 2) were not the subject of the earlier DOI or Adjudicator decisions, (b) interpreter and legal assistance were provided at...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 830
Parties
Applicant: KPS; 1st Respondent: Director of Immigration; 2nd Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 May 2020
Case Number
HCAL62/2016
Procedural Posture
Constitutional and Administrative Law Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Against Refusal of Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Outcome
Leave to appeal out of time refused; Leave Summons dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Procedural Fairness, Language Assistance, Legal Representation, Discrimination
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Constitutional Law Non Refoulement Extension of Time Leave to Appeal Procedural Fairness +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KPS

Applicant

Director of Immigration

1st Respondent

Torture Claims Appeal Board

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional and Administrative Law Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Against Refusal of Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time for appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided good reason for a 1 year 9 month delay
  3. 3 Whether the intended appeal has a real prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

Refusal to extend time: the 1 year 9 month delay was inordinate and not satisfactorily explained; the proposed grounds of appeal lack any real prospect of success because (a) key complaints (BOR 2) were not the subject of the earlier DOI or Adjudicator decisions, (b) interpreter and legal assistance were provided at material times, and (c) applicant advanced no arguable errors of law or procedural unfairness in the Judgment; extension would be futile.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal out of time refused; Leave Summons dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal out of time refused
  • Leave Summons dismissed