MI v. IAN CANDY

MI v. IAN CANDY

Extension of time refused and leave application dismissed because applicant failed to show good reason for unjustified delay of about five months beyond the statutory/Rule 53 limit, demonstrated lack of due diligence in pursuing legal aid and documents, delay prejudiced good administration, and the proposed grounds were not reasonably arguable (credibility findings and factual assessments by the Adjudicator were lawful and within range of reasonable decision-making).

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 415
Parties
Applicant: MI; Putative Respondent: Ian Candy; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 February 2018
Case Number
HCAL21/2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave and Extension of Time) / Application for Extension of Time and Leave (inter Partes Oral Hearing)
Outcome
Summons dismissed; application for extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review is out of time and accordingly not permitted to proceed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Judicial Review, Extension of Time, Credibility Assessment, Bill of Rights (bor) Issues, Torture and CIDTP, State Protection, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Judicial Review Extension of Time Credibility Assessment +4 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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MI

Applicant

Ian Candy

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave and Extension of Time) / Application for Extension of Time and Leave (inter Partes Oral Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extension of time to apply for leave to apply for judicial review should be granted despite delay
  2. 2 Whether proposed grounds of judicial review were arguable on their merits (including BOR2 and BOR22 issues)
  3. 3 Whether the Adjudicator’s credibility findings were irrational or procedurally unfair

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time refused and leave application dismissed because applicant failed to show good reason for unjustified delay of about five months beyond the statutory/Rule 53 limit, demonstrated lack of due diligence in pursuing legal aid and documents, delay prejudiced good administration, and the proposed grounds were not reasonably arguable (credibility findings and factual assessments by the Adjudicator were lawful and within range of reasonable decision-making).

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed; application for extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review is out of time and accordingly not permitted to proceed.

Orders

  • Summons dismissed.
  • Application to extend time to apply for leave to apply for judicial review refused.