RE RISWANTI

HCAL 2534/2019

[2025] HKCFI 3956

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2534 OF 2019

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

1.  On 27 March 2025, the court sent by ordinary post the order together with the decision of the court in the prescribed Call-Form 1 dismissing the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review against the board’s decision to the applicant’s address that she updated when she appeared before the court for her application for leave to apply for judicial review on 11 February 2025.

2.  Pursuant to Order 53 rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, the time limit for an appeal to the Court of Appeal is 14 days after the order of the court. The deadline for the applicant to file the appeal would have been 10 April 2025. After a delay for about one month, the applicant issued a summons dated 6 May 2025 to apply for an extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the order.

3.  The guidelines governing the discretion for an extension of time to appeal against a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review therefore apply in the present case. A court shall have regard to: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the prospect of success of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted.

4.  I will first of all deal with the applicant’s explanation for the delay. The applicant filed an affirmation in support of the summons. In her supporting affirmation, the applicant stated that the court at the hearing did not allow or did not give her opportunity to clarify her case. She also stated that since she was unrepresented, she was ignorant of the 14 days’ time limit. She also stated that she did not receive the court’s decision and the order.

5.  At the hearing, I asked the applicant to elaborate more as to her reason for the delay. Despite the applicant’s confirmation that her address has not been changed since the hearing before the judge and up to now, she alleged that she had not received the court order or the court’s decision in Call-Form 1 even up till now.

6.  When she was asked why she had decided to appeal since she had not even received the decision, she explained that she went to see a lawyer and it was the lawyer who prepared all the documents. And despite having engaged what she called a private lawyer, she stated that her own lawyer had not explained the contents of the decision to her.  And when I asked her why she decided to file the present summons, she told me that she simply followed the advice of her lawyers.

7.  Having considered the supporting affirmation and her further explanation in court, I do not accept the applicant’s explanation, and I do not find there is good reason for the delay. According to what the applicant told me, the reason why she wanted to appeal was simply because she wanted, so to speak, to buy time because she had just recently married to a Hong Kong resident. She wanted more time so that she could process her application for a dependant visa.

8.  Plainly, in my view, the applicant filed the summons without even having had any knowledge as to the reason for the dismissal of her application for leave to apply for judicial review. More importantly, from what the applicant told me, I believe that the intended appeal is not an authentic challenge to the decision. She confirmed at the hearing that the real purpose of the appeal is to play for time.

9.  As for the prospect of success, I am not satisfied that there is any. The applicant is not able to advance any grounds for her intended appeal. I am therefore not satisfied that there is a good prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal.

10.  Whether to extend time to appeal is the discretion of the court. Having regard to the delay for about four weeks, a lack of good reason for the delay and the lack of merits. I am disinclined to exercise my discretion to extend time to the applicant to serve her appeal. The summons is therefore dismissed.