SHAN ALI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

SHAN ALI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Refusal of the extension of time was justified because the applicant did not apply promptly, failed to provide any adequate explanation or affidavit accounting for the delay, and there were no arguable grounds of appeal; therefore the court properly exercised its discretion to dismiss the summons and award costs.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 581
Parties
Applicant: Shan Ali; 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
1 March 2019
Case Number
HCAL1155/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Refusal of Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement/article 3 Cat) / Decision on Summons for Extension of Time to Appeal (first Instance)
Outcome
Summons dated 13 December 2018 dismissed; extension of time to appeal refused; costs awarded.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Extension of Time, Judicial Review Leave, Procedural Requirements, Costs
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Extension of Time Judicial Review Leave Procedural Requirements Costs

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shan Ali

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 Appeal Refusal of Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement/article 3 Cat) / Decision on Summons for Extension of Time to Appeal (first Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant extension of time to appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided a prompt application and adequate explanation for delay
  3. 3 Whether there were any arguable grounds of appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Refusal of the extension of time was justified because the applicant did not apply promptly, failed to provide any adequate explanation or affidavit accounting for the delay, and there were no arguable grounds of appeal; therefore the court properly exercised its discretion to dismiss the summons and award costs.

Court Disposition

Summons dated 13 December 2018 dismissed; extension of time to appeal refused; costs awarded.

Orders

  • Summons dated 13 December 2018 dismissed.
  • Applicant to pay HK$1,000 towards the costs of these proceedings.