WARTINI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

WARTINI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

The application for leave was dismissed because it was filed substantially out of time (approximately seven months and five months late) and the applicant failed to show good reasons to extend time under Order 53 Rule 4; on the merits the Adjudicator lawfully and reasonably found no risk of torture, persecution, BOR2 or BOR3, there was no procedural unfairness in declining an oral hearing given the material before the Board, and no error of law or Wednesbury unreasonableness was shown.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 28
Parties
Applicant: Wartini; 1st Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 January 2019
Case Number
HCAL563/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Extension of Time and Dismissal of Leave Application
Outcome
Extension of time refused; leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture, Refugee Status, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Extension of Time, Procedural Fairness, State Protection, Internal Relocation, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Refugee Status Leave to Apply for Judicial Review +5 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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wartini

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Extension of Time and Dismissal of Leave Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave was filed within the three month period or whether there was good reason to extend time under Order 53 Rule 4
  2. 2 Whether the Adjudicator breached procedural fairness by refusing an oral hearing
  3. 3 Whether the Adjudicator erred in law or reached a Wednesbury unreasonable conclusion on risk of torture, persecution, BOR2 and BOR3 grounds

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave was dismissed because it was filed substantially out of time (approximately seven months and five months late) and the applicant failed to show good reasons to extend time under Order 53 Rule 4; on the merits the Adjudicator lawfully and reasonably found no risk of torture, persecution, BOR2 or BOR3, there was no procedural unfairness in declining an oral hearing given the material before the Board, and no error of law or Wednesbury unreasonableness was shown.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

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