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

HCAL 3823/2019

[2025] HKCFI 4528

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 3823 OF 2019

________________________

________________

_________________

D E C I S I O N

_________________

1.  By my decision dated 14 April 2025, I refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) dated 6 December 2019 which refused the Applicant’s non-refoulement protection claim.

2.  By a summons filed on 14 May 2025, the Applicant seeks extension of time to appeal against my above decision. As the 14-day appeal period under O.53, r.3(4) of the RHC expired on 28 April 2025, the Applicant is out of time in her intended appeal by 16 days.

3.  The applicable principles are trite: the court shall have regard to (a) 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 (see Re Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226 and Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346).

4.  The hearing for this application was initially fixed on 1 September 2025. Due to logistical issues with interpretation service, it was re-fixed to 19 September 2025. The Applicant was absent at the re-fixed hearing.

5.  From the court record, the Notice of Hearing for the original hearing was sent to the Applicant on 4 August 2025 but it was returned marked with incomplete address. It also transpired that she was not contactable at the contact number provided by herself.

6.  The consequence of any delay occasioned by the ineffectiveness of correspondence address falls on the shoulder of the litigant (see Re Ahmed Syed Rafiq [2018] HKCA 178). In this case the correspondence address to which the Notice of Hearing was sent was provided by the Applicant in her summons, filed a mere 3 months before the Notice of Hearing was sent. There was no record of her updating this address after the summons was filed. I therefore see no reason to not proceed in the Applicant’s absence.

7.  The delay in the present case was not particularly long but there is no explanation whatsoever offered in either the summons or the affirmation filed in support.

8.  Further and more importantly, there is nothing in either the summons or the supporting affirmation to articulate any proposed grounds of appeal, or point to any particular error in the decision she seeks to appeal against. As such I fail to see any prospect of success in her intended appeal.

9.  In the premises, it would be pointless to extend the time for the Applicant’s intended appeal. I therefore dismiss the application.