Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Duty to provide address

Legal area

Court

15 Sept 2023

MUHAMMAD ARIF AMIN MUGHAL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1049
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP117/2023

The applicant's delay in filing was unjustified because he failed to update his address; where delay is inexcusable the applicant must show a real prospect of success, and because there was no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board's or judge's decisions the intended appeal had no realistic prospect; therefore no extension of time or leave to appeal out of time is granted and the summons is dismissed.
2 Dec 2022

LAMA RINA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1759
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP140/2020

The applicant failed to show good grounds to extend the time for seeking leave to appeal because she did not particularise or substantiate her asserted detention or assistance failures, she failed to maintain an effective address for service, and the Court of Appeal had sufficiently explained its refusal; there was no question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b), therefore leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused.
9 Dec 2021

RE NASEER TARAB UL HASSAN

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1849
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP247/2021

The application for extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant's delay of over 2.5 years was substantial, no cogent explanation was provided, the applicant identified no error of law or arguable ground in the Judge's decision, and therefore there was no real prospect of success such that extension would be futile.
18 Oct 2016

AJ v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3007
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL165/2016

Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant delayed over four years without a reasonable or timely explanation, failed to provide or update a reliable address for service resulting in returned documents, did not demonstrate any arguable merit or real prospect of success in the intended appeal, and allowing the appeal would cause prejudice to public administration; therefore the summons was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Hong Kong Case Law

MUHAMMAD ARIF AMIN MUGHAL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

LAMA RINA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER

RE NASEER TARAB UL HASSAN

AJ v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER