FITRI ANDARU AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

FITRI ANDARU AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Extension of time was refused because the 26-day delay, explained by alleged financial inability, did not justify extension given that the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success; accordingly the application was dismissed; non-compliance with Order 80 r2 was treated as an irregularity rather than rendering the application a nullity.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 74
Parties
1st Applicant: Fitri Andaru; 2nd Applicant: Saqlain Muhammad Zain; 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
9 January 2025
Case Number
HCAL1850/2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal Against Dismissal of Non Refoulement Claims Appeals / Decision on Summons for Extension of Time (determined on Paper)
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused and application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Extension of Time, Judicial Review, Appeal Prospects, Procedural Irregularity
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Civil Procedure Non Refoulement Extension of Time Judicial Review Appeal Prospects +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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fitri Andaru

1st Applicant

Saqlain Muhammad Zain

2nd Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal Against Dismissal of Non Refoulement Claims Appeals / Decision on Summons for Extension of Time (determined on Paper)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 length of delay
  2. 2 reasons for delay (financial inability)
  3. 3 prospect of success of intended appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time was refused because the 26-day delay, explained by alleged financial inability, did not justify extension given that the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success; accordingly the application was dismissed; non-compliance with Order 80 r2 was treated as an irregularity rather than rendering the application a nullity.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused and application dismissed

Orders

  • Refuse extension of time to file the notice of appeal.
  • Dismiss the application for extension of time.