RE MOHAMMAD FIROJ AND OTHERS

HCAL 232/2017

[2019] HKCFI 2028

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 232 OF 2017

___________________

___________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

1.  This is an application for leave for extension of time to appeal against this court’s judgment dated 22 January 2018.

2.  The application for leave to apply for judicial review was heard on 5 January 2018, with the first applicant representing himself, the second applicant, the third applicant and the fourth applicant.

3.  Leave was refused on 22 January 2018.  A copy of the said Order was sent to the applicant’s address by registered post at Pei Ho Street.  That is the address as seen in all his previous affirmations and indeed the same address that he put down in the present summons for today’s hearing.  The post was returned to the High Court on 20 Feburary 2018, marked “unclaimed”, which means that a notice for collection of the registered post has been left at the aforesaid address for the applicant to go to a post office to collect it but it was not claimed.

4.  The applicant took out the present summons on 11 July 2019, and claimed that it was not until 4 July 2019 that he found out through the Immigration Department that judgment against his application for leave to judicial review was handed down long ago and past the appeal period.  In his affirmation he claimed not to know English and no one could assist him.

5.  I do not accept his explanation, especially in view of the fact that the address he gave to the court has remained the same throughout.  The envelope of the registered post was marked “unclaimed” instead of “no such person” supports the fact that he resides at that address but for some reasons known to himself, he did not claim the registered post from the post office. 

6.  Indeed, he has, during today’s hearing, confirmed that to be his address.  There has been a long delay before he claims to have suddenly learnt that a judgment against him was handed down.  It is simply unimaginable that someone who had attended court and was informed that judgment would be reserved and hand down would have taken no initiative to make enquiries but chose to leave it until very late, unless it was some sort of tactics to delay the matter for his own purpose.

7.  I see no reason to grant extension of time.  The first applicant stated today that the conditions in his country of origin have worsened if he is refouled back, he and his family might get killed.  These are all matters they have been canvassed by the Board.  I also see no merits in the appeal.  The application for extension of time is dismissed.