TRI WIDAYATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

TRI WIDAYATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

The court refused to extend time because the applicant was more than three years late with no explanation and there was no prospect of success: the Director and the Board had lawfully and rationally found low risk from a private creditor, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation, and no...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 799
Parties
Applicant: Tri Widayati; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 March 2021
Case Number
HCAL213/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Article 3 HKBOR, Article 2 HKBOR, Internal Relocation, Extension of Time, Judicial Review Procedure, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
en
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Article 3 HKBOR Article 2 HKBOR Internal Relocation +3 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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tri Widayati

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time for the leave application under Order 53 r4(1)
  2. 2 Whether the intended judicial review has any reasonable prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the Director and the Board committed errors of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to extend time because the applicant was more than three years late with no explanation and there was no prospect of success: the Director and the Board had lawfully and rationally found low risk from a private creditor, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation, and no legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness was shown; accordingly leave was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.

Orders

  • Extension of time for the application for leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed