GURTEJ SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 410/2021

[2026] HKCFI 2990

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 410 OF 2021

____________

BETWEEN

____________

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

Background

1.  By way of summons filed on 2 April 2026 (“the Summons”), the applicant applies for an extension of time to appeal against my order made on 11 March 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 8 March 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 11 March 2026, the last day for the applicant to lodge an appeal was on 25 March 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 Summons and his supporting affirmation dated 2 April 2026, the applicant explained his delay by saying that his letter box was broken and the order letter was in another box. Hence, he did not get the order letter on time. However, the applicant did not mention any ground for his intended appeal.

8.  The applicant was absent at the hearing of the Summons on 14 May 2026. Thus, there was no further explanation for his delay in lodging the intended appeal, and there was no ground of appeal advanced by the applicant at all.

9.  The explanation given by the applicant for his delay was unsatisfactory. If his letter box was broken, there was no reason for the postman or anyone else to put the letter into another box, especially when the letter was a letter from the court.

10.  More importantly, the applicant did not give any ground for his intended appeal. Thus, there is absolutely nothing for me to consider the merits or the prospect of success 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 failed to demonstrate any of the above. Hence, there is simply no valid ground for the intended appeal or the intended judicial review.

13.  In the circumstances, there is no proper excuse for the applicant’s delay in lodging the appeal and there is no reasonable prospect of success in the intended judicial review. 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.