NGUYEN VAN HOA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 1358/2021

[2026] HKCFI 4195

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1358 OF 2021

____________

____________

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

Background

1.  By way of summons filed on 3 June 2026 (“the Summons”), the applicant applies for an extension of time to appeal against my order made on 22 April 2026, which dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 9 September 2021.

2.  Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A, stipulates that “Where an application for leave is refused by a judge …, the applicant may appeal against the judge’s order to the Court of Appeal within 14 days after such order”.

3.  In Re Li Jing [2015] 2 HKLRD 933, it was held that the time for lodging an appeal against the refusal of granting leave to apply for judicial review started to run from the date of the making of the order, not from the date when the sealed order was issued, nor from the date when the sealed order was mailed, and no account should be taken of the fact that the applicant received the sealed order late (see also Re Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226).

4.  As my order was made on 22 April 2026, the last day for the applicant to lodge an appeal was on 6 May 2026. Thus, the time for appealing against my order has expired, and the applicant requires leave from this court to appeal out of time.

The applicable law

5.  In considering whether to extend time for appealing a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review, the court will take into account: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted (see Jagg Singh v Torture Claims Appeal Board and another [2020] HKCA 844).

6.  However, the crucial consideration in such an application is whether the applicant can show that there is a reasonable prospect of success in the intended judicial review (see Re Gurung Min Bahadur, supra), and the court will not grant extension for a hopeless appeal to be pursued (see Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702).

Discussion

7.  In the applicant’s supporting affirmation dated 3 June 2026, he explained his delay in lodging the appeal by saying that he did not receive any letter from the High Court, he did not know that his application for judicial review was refused, he did not speak English or Chinese and so he had to seek help from his friends to help him to submit his appeal to the High Court and it was inconvenient for him to file the appeal in the appeal period.

8.  At the hearing of the Summons on 14 July 2026, the applicant was absent and hence he did not explain his delay any further.

9.  The applicant’s explanations in his affirmation are not satisfactory, as he did not explain why he could not receive the letter from the High Court, as well as when and how he came to know that his application for judicial review was refused. When he said that it was inconvenient for him to file appeal in the appeal period, it seems that he should have received my decision within the appeal period but it was just inconvenient for him to file the appeal within time. Thus, I do not find that there was any reasonable excuse for lodging the intended appeal late.

10.  The applicant did not give any proposed ground of appeal in the Summons or in his supporting affirmation at all. Thus, there was nothing for me to consider the merits of his intended appeal.

11.  For this application to be successful, the applicant must demonstrate that this court had made errors of law or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before this court or was otherwise plainly wrong (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524).

12.  The applicant has failed to demonstrate any of the above, and hence there is simply no valid ground for the intended appeal.

13.  As there is no satisfactory explanation for the applicant’s delay in lodging the intended appeal, and there is no reasonable prospect of success in the intended appeal, I am not prepared to grant any extension of time for the applicant to pursue such a hopeless appeal.

Conclusion

14.  For reasons aforesaid, the Summons is dismissed.