RE RIAZ MUHAMMAD TEHSEEN
The court granted the extension because the applicant's non‑receipt of the court's letter satisfactorily explained the three‑week delay and the delay was not significant in the circumstances.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] HKCFI 1063
- Parties
- Applicant: RIAZ MUHAMMAD TEHSEEN
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 20 May 2019
- Case Number
- HCAL256/2018
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative Law) / Decision (in Chambers)
- Outcome
- Extension of time granted
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Delay, Service of Court Documents
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
RIAZ MUHAMMAD TEHSEEN
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative Law) / Decision (in Chambers)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether to grant an extension of time to the applicant
- 2 Whether the applicant's explanation of non‑receipt of the court's letter justified the delay
- 3 Whether a three‑week delay was insignificant
Ratio Decidendi
The court granted the extension because the applicant's non‑receipt of the court's letter satisfactorily explained the three‑week delay and the delay was not significant in the circumstances.
Court Disposition
Extension of time granted
Orders
- Extension of time granted to the applicant
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
bjbj HCAL 256/2018 [2019] HKCFI 1063 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 256 OF 2018 ______________ RE: RIAZ MUHAMMAD TEHSEEN Applicant ______________ Before: Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan in Chambers Date of Hearing: 10 April 2019 Date of Decision: 20 May 2019 D E C I S I O N On 3 nsion of time were granted. In the applicant s case, a delay of three weeks cannot be said to be insignificant, for which he explained in his supporting affirmation of the same date that he did not receive any letter from the Court and hence was not aware of the decision, but he was able to exhibit to his affirmation a copy of the letter dated 3 zsjd^ hCkE hCkE hCkE gdCkE gdCkE gd<D hsUH hCkE gdGi gdGi gdGi gd<D oioea h9ie h9ie h9ie h9ie h9ie h9ie h9ie h9ie :pkem [Content_Types].xml _rels/.rels theme/theme/themeManager.xml K Y, sQ}# theme/theme/theme1.xml $O}) Xp90 +PHI| PP yu 9xu5 fs+W VF7H q=. 8}d- qyI@ j!Q_ jyV` |PZ+ T ""p < 4V O&x$ A8>v ;EUC n 8r *~P(5 .}x E /,EE\} theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.rels 5 6?$Q K(M&$R(.1 [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK theme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?> <a:clrMap xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" bg1="lt1" tx1="dk1" bg2="lt2" tx2="dk2" accent1="accent1" accent2="accent2" accent3="accent3" accent4="accent4" accent5="accent5" accent6="accent6" hlink="hlink" folHlink="folHlink"/> &tBL =a3VN Bh!i Bh!i =a3 2>$g _V5i HCSD 17/2012 High Court CACC 283-2007.dot Windows User Microsoft Office Word Lp1g Judiciary Hong Kong HCSD 17/2012 Title <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?><b:Sources SelectedStyle="\APA.XSL" StyleName="APA" xmlns:b="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" xmlns="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography"></b:Sources> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?> <ds:datastoreItem ds:itemID="{F9B3D8A2-7373-4CE6-916B-A55367D15281}" xmlns:ds="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/customXml"><ds:schemaRefs><ds:schemaRef ds:uri="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography"/></ds:schemaRefs></ds:datastoreItem> Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8