CHINNATHAMBI SUNDARAPANDIAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 1690/2020

[2026] HKCFI 2941

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1690 OF 2020

_____________

_____________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1.  On 1 September 2025 I refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) in dismissing his appeal regarding his non-refoulement claim upon finding that none of the grounds put forward by him reasonably arguable for his intended challenge, that there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the process before the Director of Immigration (“Director”) or the Board or in their decisions, and that there was no reasonable prospect of success in his intended application.

2.  The Applicant now by a summons issued on 6 October 2025 seeks leave to appeal against that decision out of time, as the 14-day period for him to file his appeal under Order 53 rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A ended on 15 September 2025, and hence he was some 3 weeks late with his intended appeal.

3.  In considering whether to extend time for appealing against a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review, the 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 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 Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226; and Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346.

4.  In the Applicant’s case, a delay of 3 weeks must be considered as substantial and inordinate, for which he explained in his affirmation that in about 2025 while waiting for the court’s decision on his leave application for judicial review, which he filed back in August 2020, he had moved to a new address and had accordingly informed the Immigration Department, but he did not know how to inform the court as he was without legal representation, and it was only upon making enquiries with the High Court Registry that he managed to formally file his Notice of Change of Address on 18 September 2025, and as a result he subsequently received the decision in the mail on 22 September 2025, but when he tried to file his intended appeal on 6 October 2025, he was informed by the Registry that he was by then already out of time with his intended appeal.

5.  The court record shows that the decision was first sent on the same day of 1 September 2025 to his then reported address but was subsequently returned through undelivered post, and upon further enquiries with the Immigration Department and the subsequent receipt of the Applicant’s Notice of Change of Address filed on 18 September 2025, the decision was re-sent on 22 September 2025 to his new address without being returned through undelivered post, which more or less substantiated the Applicant’s explanation, in which case when he attempted to file his intended appeal on 6 October 2025, it was still within the 14 days period of his receipt of the decision, and hence he was not out of time with his intended appeal.

6.  In the premises, and for the given reasons, I am prepared to accept the Applicant’s explanation and exercise my discretion by extending time for him to file his notice of appeal within 14 days of this decision.