RE SULAKHAN SINGH

HCAL 897/2017

[2018] HKCFI 2380

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 897 OF 2017

______________

______________

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

1.  On 20 July 2018 I refused to extend time for the applicant’s late filing of his application for leave to apply for judicial review of both the decisions of the Director and the Board in rejecting his non-refoulement claim upon finding no explanation from him for his almost two months’ delay nor any merits in his intended challenge, and accordingly dismissed his application.

2.  The applicant now by a summons issued on 24 August 2018 applies for extension of time for leave to appeal against my decision of 20 July 2018, as he is again late by more than two weeks under Order 59, rule 2B(1) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A, which stipulates that an application for leave to appeal against an interlocutory judgment or order of the Court may only be made to the Court in the first instance within 14 days from the date of the judgment or order.

3.  In his summons the applicant stated that he was not aware of my decision of 20 July 2018 until he went to the Immigration Department to inquire about the progress of his case that he was informed of the decision when by then it was already beyond the 14-day period, but in his supporting affirmation of the same date he also deposed that he did receive the letter from the High Court informing him of my order and decision of 20 July 2018.

4.  Be that as it may and while the two weeks’ delay may not appear to me excessive, the phrase “may only be made” in Order 59, rule 2B(1) is unequivocal, indicating that the application to the Court below may only be made within the stipulated 14-day period, and that in the absence of express provision giving the court below power to grant extension of time to apply for leave to appeal, it must necessarily follow that I do not have such power to do so : see Menno Leendert Vos v Global Fair Industrial Ltd & Ors (unreported) HCA 4200/1995, 23 April 2010, para 6).  

5.  Further, the applicant did not produce any draft notice or grounds of appeal as required by Order 59, rule 2B(4), nor did he identify any errors in my decision.  In the premises and with no power to extend time, I accordingly dismiss his application.