MOINUDDIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

MOINUDDIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Applicant's leave application was refused because he was more than 15 weeks out of time without any satisfactory explanation and his intended challenge had no realistic prospect of success as no legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions was demonstrated; accordingly time was not extended and leave dismissed.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 3573
Parties
Applicant: Moinuddin; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 November 2021
Case Number
HCAL138/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Leave Application Refused and Dismissed (extension of Time Refused)
Outcome
Extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Risk of Torture, Article 3 HKBOR, Article 2 HKBOR, Internal Relocation, State Protection, Procedural Fairness, Scope of Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Refugee and Non Refoulement Law Extension of Time Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Risk of Torture +6 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moinuddin

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Leave Application Refused and Dismissed (extension of Time Refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether time should be extended for an out-of-time application for leave to apply for judicial review under Order 53 r 4(1)
  2. 2 Whether the intended judicial review has any real prospects of success (merits)
  3. 3 Whether the Board or Director made legal errors, were irrational or procedurally unfair

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant's leave application was refused because he was more than 15 weeks out of time without any satisfactory explanation and his intended challenge had no realistic prospect of success as no legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions was demonstrated; accordingly time was not extended and leave dismissed.

Court Disposition

Extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.

Orders

  • Refusal to extend time for filing the application for leave to apply for judicial review
  • Dismissal of the application for leave to apply for judicial review