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

HCAL 2744/2019

[2026] HKCFI 4010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2744 OF 2019

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Introduction

1.  This is the Applicant’s application by summons filed on 2 June 2026 (the “Summons”)  seeking leave to appeal the order of this Court dated 29 January 2026 (the “Order”)  refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review (the “leave application”).   

Legal principles applicable to application for extension of time to appeal

2.  Under Order 53, rule 3(4)  of the Rules of the High Court, an appeal against any decision of the court refusing an application for leave to apply for judicial review shall be made within fourteen days after the date of the decision.  Thus, by 2 June 2026 when the Summons was filed, his application was three months and eighteen days out of time.  Leave to appeal out of time is required. 

3.  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 the delay; (2)  the reasons for the delay; (3)  the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4)  the prejudice to the respondent if extension of time was granted.  Usually, prospect of success of the intended appeal is the single factor which carries most weight in deciding whether to grant extension of time.  The fourth factor needs to be considered only if the sum total of the first three are in favour of granting extension of time.

Discussion and conclusion

4.  The application is more than three and half months late.  In the Summons, the Applicant said he did not receive the Order.  He gave no particulars.  He has also not advanced any grounds of appeal.  To assist him to present a proper application for extension of time, the Court gave him given specific directions to file an affirmation or statement within 14 days setting out: (1)  the date when and the circumstances under which he received the Order with supporting documentary evidence, if available; (2) his various addresses since 17 November 2022; and (3)  the grounds of his proposed appeal.  He was also advised that his application for extension of time will be determined on paper after 14 days from the date of the directions regardless whether the directions have been complied with.  As at the date of this decision, a month has lapsed, he has not complied with the directions.

5.  Despite the Court’s readiness to indulge, without his complying with the directions, the Court could not assess the credibility of his explanation for the delay and if his proposed appeal has any prospect of success.  The directions were sent to him by post to his address as stated in his Summons and has not been returned in the course of mail.  There is nothing to suggest he has not received the directions.  The Court could only assume he deliberately chose not to comply with the directions because he has no reasonable explanation to offer for the rather long delay and has no arguable grounds of appeal.  His failure to response also evinces a lack of will to prosecute his proposed appeal.  In view of the conclusions reached above, there is no need to consider the issue of prejudice to the respondent if extension of time is granted. 

6.  For the above reasons, his application for extension of time to appeal is refused.