SK SIRAJ UDDIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

SK SIRAJ UDDIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Extension of time refused because the applicant failed to give a satisfactory explanation for the delay, failed to keep the court informed of his address and communications, was notified of the decision, and the underlying application lacked arguable merit; accordingly it was not in the interests of justice to grant...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 760
Parties
Applicant: SK SIRAJ UDDIN; Putative Respondent: TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD; Putative Respondent: NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE; Putative Interested Party: DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 March 2019
Case Number
HCAL727/2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time (extension of Time)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal out of time dismissed; extension of time refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Convention Against Torture Article 3, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Extension of Time, Procedural Compliance
Source Language
en
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Convention Against Torture Article 3 Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Extension of Time Procedural Compliance

Source-derived case record

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SK SIRAJ UDDIN

Applicant

TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Putative Respondent

NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Putative Respondent

DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time (extension of Time)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant an extension of time to appeal under Order 59 rule 15
  2. 2 Whether the applicant acted promptly and adequately explained the delay
  3. 3 Whether the underlying judicial review application has sufficient merit to justify an extension

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time refused because the applicant failed to give a satisfactory explanation for the delay, failed to keep the court informed of his address and communications, was notified of the decision, and the underlying application lacked arguable merit; accordingly it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal out of time dismissed; extension of time refused.

Orders

  • Summons dated 18 December 2018 dismissed.