SAIDY DUTA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

SAIDY DUTA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Extension of time refused because applicant failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay, failed to maintain a proper address for service, and the underlying application lacked merit so that granting an extension would not be in the interests of justice.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2908
Parties
Applicant: Saidy Duta; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 November 2020
Case Number
HCAL360/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Refusal of Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Chambers Hearing on Summons Seeking Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Outcome
Summons dismissed; extension of time refused.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Judicial Review, Non Refoulement, Convention Against Torture Article 3, Service and Address Obligations, Delay and Promptness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Procedural Law Extension of Time Leave to Appeal Judicial Review Non Refoulement +3 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Saidy Duta

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Refusal of Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Chambers Hearing on Summons Seeking Leave to Appeal Out of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant an extension of time to appeal a judge's refusal of leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the applicant gave an adequate explanation for the delay
  3. 3 Whether the proposed appeal has any real prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time refused because applicant failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay, failed to maintain a proper address for service, and the underlying application lacked merit so that granting an extension would not be in the interests of justice.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed; extension of time refused.

Orders

  • The applicant's summons dated 2 September 2020 is dismissed; no extension of time to appeal is granted.