OFUKA BENEDICT SALLY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

OFUKA BENEDICT SALLY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Refusal to grant extension of time to appeal was justified because the applicant failed to provide an adequate or credible explanation for the delay, service at the address on file was probable, the applicant regularly reported to Immigration and therefore should have known, and the underlying judicial review lacked a real prospect of success; in all the circumstances it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 1313
Parties
Applicant: Ofuka Benedict Sally; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 May 2019
Case Number
HCAL985/2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Extension of Time to Appeal / Application for Leave to Extend Time to Appeal (chambers)
Outcome
Summons dated 5 March 2019 dismissed; leave to extend time to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Judicial Review, Non Refoulement, Procedural Fairness, Leave to Appeal
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Immigration Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Non‑refoulement/convention Against Torture Extension of Time Judicial Review Non Refoulement Procedural Fairness +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ofuka Benedict Sally

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Extension of Time to Appeal / Application for Leave to Extend Time to Appeal (chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant extension of time to appeal refusal of extension for leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether applicant provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay
  3. 3 Whether the underlying judicial review has a real prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

Refusal to grant extension of time to appeal was justified because the applicant failed to provide an adequate or credible explanation for the delay, service at the address on file was probable, the applicant regularly reported to Immigration and therefore should have known, and the underlying judicial review lacked a real prospect of success; in all the circumstances it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension.

Court Disposition

Summons dated 5 March 2019 dismissed; leave to extend time to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Summons dated 5 March 2019 dismissed; extension of time to appeal refused.