PANGESTUNINGSIH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 2422/2019

[2025] HKCFI 1499

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2422 OF 2019

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  By summons dated 25 February 2025, the applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the order of this court dated 4 February 2025, dismissing her application for leave to apply for judicial review against the Torture Claims Appeal Board.

2.  Pursuant to O 53 r 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, the time limit for an appeal to the Court of Appeal is 14 days (from the date the order of the court is made). The deadline for the applicant to serve her notice of appeal would have been 18 February 2025. The applicant is therefore 7 days’ late.

3.  The hearing for the summons was fixed to be heard on 31 March 2025. A notice of hearing with a reminder of the consequence of absence^[1] dated 6 March 2025 was sent to the applicant’s last known address by ordinary post. The applicant did not turn up at the hearing. Several telephone calls had been made to the applicant’s given telephone number before the hearing, but to no avail. The information before this court shows that the said notice of hearing has not been returned undelivered through the post. In the circumstances, this court will dispose of the summons according to the materials already placed before the court.

The law

4.  The guidelines governing the discretion for an extension of time to appeal against a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review therefore apply. A Court shall have regard to (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reason for the delay; (iii) the prospect of success of the intended appeal; and (iv) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted: see Re MK HCMP 2609/2016, 10 January 2017; Chu On Fong Winter v The Appeal Panel (Housing) HCMP 982/2017, 20 July 2017; Islam Raja Rais v Director of Immigration HCMP 881/2017, 26 June 2017; Re Gurang Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226; Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346; and Nguyen Thi Hong Thuy [2024] HKCA 1172.

Discussion

5.  Whilst it is accepted that a delay of 7 days is not substantial, I do not regard the delay as a mere inadvertence or an oversight. In such a case, a good explanation is required. Apart from stating in her affirmation in support of the summons that she was late because she “did not get any letter from the Court about my decision” and stating in her summons that she was informed about the Court’s decision by an immigration officer when it was already out of time to appeal, the applicant did not provide any other reasons to explain for the 7 days’ delay. Neither has she advanced any grounds of appeal in support of the summons.

6.  In the absence of good reason to explain for the delay and any proposed grounds for her intended appeal, I am not satisfied that there are good prospects of success in her intended appeal.

7.  For the reasons stated above, this court is disinclined to exercise its discretion to grant any extension of time for the applicant to serve her notice of appeal, and accordingly dismiss her summons.