SULTAN ZAHID v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

SULTAN ZAHID v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Extension of time refused because the applicant failed to provide an adequate and consistent explanation for the delay, failed in his duty to provide an effective address for service, and the underlying judicial review application had no arguable merit such that granting an extension would not be in the interests of justice.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2387
Parties
Applicant: Sultan Zahid; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 September 2019
Case Number
HCAL41/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Refusal of Leave / Application to Extend Time to Appeal Refused Leave; Hearing in Chambers; Summons Dated 15 August 2019
Outcome
Summons dismissed; extension of time to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Judicial Review, Extension of Time to Appeal, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Service and Litigant Address Obligations
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Public Law Non Refoulement Judicial Review Extension of Time to Appeal Leave to Apply for Judicial Review +1 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sultan Zahid

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Refusal of Leave / Application to Extend Time to Appeal Refused Leave; Hearing in Chambers; Summons Dated 15 August 2019

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant extension of time to appeal refusal of leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether applicant provided acceptable explanation for delay in filing appeal
  3. 3 Whether the underlying judicial review application has sufficient merit to justify extension

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time refused because the applicant failed to provide an adequate and consistent explanation for the delay, failed in his duty to provide an effective address for service, and the underlying judicial review application had no arguable merit such that granting an extension would not be in the interests of justice.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed; extension of time to appeal refused

Orders

  • The applicant's summons dated 15 August 2019 be dismissed.