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

HCAL 2999/2019

[2025] HKCFI 3295

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2999 OF 2019

____________

____________

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

Introduction

1.  This is the Applicants’ application by summons filed on 28 May 2025 for extension of time to appeal the order of this Court dated 8 May 2025 (the “Order”) refusing him leave to apply for judicial review (the “leave application”) of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office.

Discussion

2.  Under Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, where an application for leave to apply for judicial review 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.  The Application is 5 days out of time.  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 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.  If the delay is not substantial, it would be readily condoned if there is some credible explanation and an arguable ground of appeal.  If the first three factors are resolved against granting leave, there is no need to consider prejudice to the respondent.

3.  The delay of five days in an appeal period of 14 days is not substantial which the Court will condone if the Applicant meets the above requirements.   The Applicant’s explanation for the delay as stated in his Summons is “insufficient source” and  “lack of knowledge” which does not appear to this Court to be a reasonable explanation.  He did not elaborate.  Nevertheless, this Court was prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt that he may be able to provide further information to make good the explanation.  However, he had not provided any grounds of appeal.  To assist him to perfect his application, the Court gave him directions on 2 June 2025 by letter to file a statement or affirmation within fourteen days stating the grounds of his intended appeal.  He did not respond. 

4.  As at the date of issue of this Decision, about one and half months had lapsed.  The inference to be drawn from the Applicant’s failure to respond is that he has no reasonable explanation for the delay, no arguable grounds of appeal and lacks the will to prosecute his intended appeal.  There is no basis on which the Court may exercise its discretion to grant him extension of time.  Accordingly, his application is refused.