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

HCAL 2981/2019

[2025] HKCFI 2408

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2981 OF 2019

____________

____________

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

Introduction

1.  This is the Applicants’ application by summons filed on 30 April 2025 for extension of time to appeal the order of this Court dated 10 April 2025 (the “Order”) refusing him leave to apply for judicial review (the “leave application”) of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office.

Discussion

2.  Under Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, where an application for leave to apply for judicial review 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.  The Applicant is six days out of time.  In Jagg Singh and Torture Claims Appeal Board/non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office^[1], the Court of Appeal held that 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.  If the delay is not substantial, it would be readily condoned if there is some credible explanation and an arguable ground of appeal.  If the first three factors are resolved against granting leave, there is no need to consider prejudice to the respondent.

3.  The delay is not substantial.  The Applicant’s explanation for the delay as stated in his Summons and supporting affirmation is that he “got judgment late”.  He did not elaborate.  In view of the short delay the Court was not minded to ask for elaboration.  However, he did not state the grounds of his intended appeal, which is an essential requirement in an application for extension of time to appeal.  It is required to enable the Court to assess the prospect of success in the intended appeal on which the exercise of the Court’s discretion to grant leave depends.  Hence, on 9 May 2025 the Court gave him directions to file a statement or affirmation setting out the grounds of his intended appeal within ten days (ie on or before 20 May 2025).  The Court gave him ten days to file the information because he already had the standard 14 days’ period to appeal and the intervening period since then until the issue of the directions.  He did not respond. 

4.  As at the date of issue of this Decision, more than 28 days had lapsed.  The inference to be drawn from the Applicant’s failure to respond is that he has no arguable grounds of appeal and lacks the will to prosecute his intended appeal.   There is no basis on which the Court may exercise its discretion to grant him extension of time.  Accordingly, his application for extension of time is refused.