SUKHVINDER SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER

SUKHVINDER SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER

Extension of time was refused because the applicant had a significant two-week delay without satisfactory evidential explanation, failed to produce draft grounds or particularise errors in the earlier decision, and there was no reasonable prospect of success in the intended appeal; granting an extension would...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 971
Parties
Applicant: Sukhvinder Singh; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 April 2023
Case Number
HCAL119/2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (non Refoulement) Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Decision on Summons in Chambers Refusing Extension of Time
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused; summons dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Extension of Time to Appeal, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Prospect of Success
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Judicial Review Non Refoulement Extension of Time to Appeal Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Procedural Fairness +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sukhvinder Singh

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (non Refoulement) Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Decision on Summons in Chambers Refusing Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time to appeal a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has provided a good reason for the delay
  3. 3 Whether the intended appeal has a reasonable prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time was refused because the applicant had a significant two-week delay without satisfactory evidential explanation, failed to produce draft grounds or particularise errors in the earlier decision, and there was no reasonable prospect of success in the intended appeal; granting an extension would therefore be futile.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused; summons dismissed.

Orders

  • Extension of time to file appeal refused
  • Summons (application for extension of time) dismissed