MD NAHID v. WILLIAM LAM, ESQ. [Decision on Leave Application]

MD NAHID v. WILLIAM LAM, ESQ. [Decision on Leave Application]

The 2014 TCAB decision: application for leave was dismissed because the leave application was made almost 44 months late and the applicant failed to show good reason to extend time; the court therefore would not consider merits. The 2018 TCAB decision: leave was refused because the applicant's complaints were not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 1902
Parties
Applicant: MD Nahid; Putative Respondent: Adjudicator, Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 July 2019
Case Number
HCAL938/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Application Dismissed/refused at Filing Stage
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review of TCAB decision dated 27 October 2014 dismissed for delay (no extension of time); application for leave to apply for judicial review of TCAB decision dated 14 May 2018 refused (no realistic prospect of success).
Legal Topics
Torture, Non Refoulement, Procedural Fairness, Extension of Time, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, State Protection, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
en
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Non Refoulement Law Torture Non Refoulement Procedural Fairness Extension of Time +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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MD Nahid

Applicant

Adjudicator, Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Application Dismissed/refused at Filing Stage

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was good reason to extend time for a late application for leave to apply for judicial review of the 27 October 2014 TCAB decision
  2. 2 Whether the Adjudicator acted with procedural unfairness towards a self-represented claimant
  3. 3 Whether the Adjudicator misdirected himself in law or made Wednesbury unreasonable findings on state protection, internal relocation and credibility

Ratio Decidendi

The 2014 TCAB decision: application for leave was dismissed because the leave application was made almost 44 months late and the applicant failed to show good reason to extend time; the court therefore would not consider merits. The 2018 TCAB decision: leave was refused because the applicant's complaints were not reasonably arguable, the Adjudicator's findings on credibility, state protection and internal relocation were supported by the record and not Wednesbury unreasonable, and there was no procedural unfairness.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review of TCAB decision dated 27 October 2014 dismissed for delay (no extension of time); application for leave to apply for judicial review of TCAB decision dated 14 May 2018 refused (no realistic prospect of success).

Orders

  • Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 27 October 2014 be dismissed; no extension of time is granted
  • Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 14 May 2018 be refused