LUONG THI DAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

LUONG THI DAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Extension of time refused because the applicant failed to provide credible and sufficient explanation for a 129‑day delay, there were available avenues of assistance which she did not pursue, and there was no prospect of success in the intended appeal or in the underlying judicial review; accordingly it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 1783
Parties
Applicant: LUONG THI DAN; Putative Respondent: TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; Putative Interested Party: DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 July 2019
Case Number
HCAL1013/2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave to Apply) — Application to Extend Time to Appeal / Chambers Decision on Summons for Extension of Time (refused)
Outcome
Summons dated 3 May 2019 dismissed; application for extension of time to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Convention Against Torture, Extension of Time to Appeal, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Language Access, Procedural Requirements
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Human Rights Non Refoulement Convention Against Torture Extension of Time to Appeal Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Language Access +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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LUONG THI DAN

Applicant

TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave to Apply) — Application to Extend Time to Appeal / Chambers Decision on Summons for Extension of Time (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extension of time to appeal should be granted considering length of delay, reasons for delay, prospects of success and prejudice to respondent
  2. 2 Whether applicant's language difficulties and alleged misinformation justified delay
  3. 3 Whether underlying judicial review had reasonable prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time refused because the applicant failed to provide credible and sufficient explanation for a 129‑day delay, there were available avenues of assistance which she did not pursue, and there was no prospect of success in the intended appeal or in the underlying judicial review; accordingly it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension.

Court Disposition

Summons dated 3 May 2019 dismissed; application for extension of time to appeal refused

Orders

  • Summons dated 3 May 2019 dismissed
  • No extension of time to appeal granted