RE YUNI AGUSTIN NINGSIH AND ANOTHER

HCAL 2662/2018

[2021] HKCFI 3151

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2662 OF 2018

_____________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.  The Applicants (a mother and her daughter, both being nationals of Indonesia), by summons dated 16 August 2021, apply for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To (“the Court”) given on 8 July 2021 refusing to grant leave to the Applicants for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board in dismissing their appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration regarding their non-refoulement claim.

2.  The 14 day period for the Applicants to file their appeal against the decision of the Court ended on 22 July 2021 and hence they were some 25 days late with their intended appeal.

3.  In considering whether to extend time for appealing against a decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, a court shall have regard to (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reason for the delay; (iii) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (iv) the prejudice to the respondent if extension of time were granted.

4.  In the Applicants’ case, the delay of 25 days is not insignificant.  The only explanation put forward by the 1^st Applicant in her affirmation appears to be that she is unrepresented and has no means to instruct a lawyer.

5.  The court record shows that the decision of the Court was sent one day after it was given to the last reported address of the Applicant.  Unfortunately, the address to which the decision of the Court was sent missed out the words “10/F”, but it does not appear that the letter was returned undelivered.  Nor is it stated by the Applicants that they did not receive the decision of the Court.

6.  As for the prospect of the intended appeal, the Applicants have not put forward any proper or valid draft or proposed grounds of appeal.  Neither have the Applicants alluded to any particulars of any error in law in the decision of the Court or why it can be said that the decision of the Court was unfair or unreasonable either in the summons or in the affirmation of the 1^st Applicant.  All that was said by the 1^st Applicant in her affirmation was that she understood that there is a good ground of appeal that was not necessarily considered at the stage of applying for leave for judicial review but without any particulars or further elaboration as to what this good ground was.

7.  In Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702, the Court of Appeal held:

“19. The prospect of success of the intended appeal is important: the court will not grant extension for a hopeless appeal to be pursued, see Re Rahman Wasif [2019] HKCA 299 at [13]; Re Kpamou Gbotoi Bernard [2019] HKCA 168; and Re Irshad Muhammad [2018] HKCA 864 at [16].”

8.  This being an application to extend time to appeal against the decision of the Court, it is for the Applicants to show that there is a reasonably arguable appeal.  This they have not done.

9.  In the premises, and for the reasons given, it would be futile to extend time for what would appear to be a hopeless appeal.  Accordingly, I refuse the Applicants’ application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of the Court and dismiss the summons.