有關 NGUYEN THI DONG 的事宜

有關 NGUYEN THI DONG 的事宜

Extension of time was refused because the delay (over six weeks) was lengthy, the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay (pandemic did not justify the late filing given the circumstances), and the proposed appeal did not raise matters of public or widespread importance nor had a realistic...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] HKCA 380
Parties
Applicant: NGUYEN THI DONG; Respondent: Director of Immigration and Torture Claims Appeal Board
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 March 2023
Case Number
CAMP146/2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time and Permission to Appeal to Court of Final Appeal Arising From Refusal of Judicial Review Leave / Application to the Court of Appeal to Extend Time and for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (determined on Paper)
Outcome
Application to extend time and for permission to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused; Notice of Motion filed 3 February 2023 struck out.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal to Final Court, Judicial Review, Non‑refoulement, Statutory Jurisdictional Requirements
Source Language
ch
Administrative Law Immigration Law Civil Procedure Public Law Extension of Time Leave to Appeal to Final Court Judicial Review Non‑refoulement +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NGUYEN THI DONG

Applicant

Director of Immigration and Torture Claims Appeal Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time and Permission to Appeal to Court of Final Appeal Arising From Refusal of Judicial Review Leave / Application to the Court of Appeal to Extend Time and for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (determined on Paper)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant extension of time under Court of Final Appeal Ordinance Cap 484 s24(5)
  2. 2 Whether the proposed appeal satisfies Cap 484 s22(1)(b) threshold of public or widespread importance or other reason to be dealt with by the Court of Final Appeal
  3. 3 Whether the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for the delay

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time was refused because the delay (over six weeks) was lengthy, the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay (pandemic did not justify the late filing given the circumstances), and the proposed appeal did not raise matters of public or widespread importance nor had a realistic prospect of success under s22(1)(b) of Cap 484; accordingly the late notice of motion was struck out.

Court Disposition

Application to extend time and for permission to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused; Notice of Motion filed 3 February 2023 struck out.

Orders

  • Extension of time to file permission to appeal refused.
  • Notice of Motion filed 3 February 2023 struck out.