SANJEEV KUMAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

SANJEEV KUMAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

The application for extension of time was refused because the applicant was 28 days late, failed to comply with specific court directions to provide the date he became aware of the order and the grounds of appeal, thereby failing to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay or any arguable grounds of appeal; the only permissible inference was absence of a reasonable excuse and lack of prospect of success, amounting to abuse of process.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 2946
Parties
Applicant: Sanjeev Kumar; 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
20 November 2023
Case Number
HCAL273/2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave and Appeal of Refusal / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal (leave to Appeal Out of Time)
Outcome
Application for extension of time to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Abuse of Process, Service of Judgment, Procedural Compliance
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Judicial Review Non Refoulement Torture Claims Extension of Time Leave to Appeal Abuse of Process +2 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 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sanjeev Kumar

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave and Appeal of Refusal / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal (leave to Appeal Out of Time)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time for appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether applicant provided a reasonable explanation for 28‑day delay
  3. 3 Whether the intended appeal had any prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time was refused because the applicant was 28 days late, failed to comply with specific court directions to provide the date he became aware of the order and the grounds of appeal, thereby failing to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay or any arguable grounds of appeal; the only permissible inference was absence of a reasonable excuse and lack of prospect of success, amounting to abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Application for extension of time to appeal refused.