RE SHAH MUHAMMAD YAQOOB

HCAL 676/2018

[2021] HKCFI 9

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 676 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

________________

D E C I S I O N

________________

1.  On 28 June 2019 I granted leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) in dismissing his appeal regarding his non-refoulement claim due to his failure to appear at the oral hearing of his appeal as procedurally unfair and/or Wednesbury unreasonable, and direct the Applicant to issue an origination summons accordingly within 14 days of the order and to effect service on the Board as respondent and the Director of Immigration as interested party.

2.  The Applicant now by a summons issued on 16 October 2020 seeks extension of time for him to do so, in which he stated as follows:

“As I do not know how to apply and I got the judgment late so I could not apply timely. Please extend my time.”

3.  The Applicant however failed to attend the hearing of his summons on 11 November 2020, nor did he respond to the subsequent contacts made by the court.

4.  Under the said order the Applicant was directed to issue his originating summons for his application for judicial review within 14 days of 28 June 2019 with the last day falling on 12 July 2019, and as the court record shows that the decision was sent on the same day to his last reported address without being returned through undelivered post, hence the Applicant was late by some 15 months with his application, which must on any view be considered as a very serious and substantial delay, for which his bare assertion of not knowing how to proceed without providing any further details or particulars of any attempts by him to proceed with the matter such as seeking help from his former lawyer from the Duty Lawyer Services or the Legal Aid Department is certainly wholly inadequate for the exercise of a discretionary decision whether to extend time, not to mention with such a serious default.

5.  As such and in view of his failure to attend the hearing to prosecute his summons or to respond to the subsequent enquiries by the court, I am not satisfied that the Applicant has provided any good reason for his serious delay, and accordingly dismiss his summons.