ALI AMANAT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 96/2025, [2025] HKCA 927

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 534

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 96 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2037 OF 2024)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Kwan VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

The application

1.  This is an application by a non-refoulement claimant for relief from sanction for failing to comply with an unless order. 

Background

2.  The applicant is a national of Pakistan.  He raised a non-refoulement claim on 24 June 2024 on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by a villager and his sons due to a land dispute.

3.  His claim was dismissed by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 19 August 2024.  His appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) was dismissed on 17 October 2024. 

4.  On 6 November 2024, the applicant filed a Form 86 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Board.  His leave application was dismissed by Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung on 18 February 2025[1].  He filed a notice of appeal on 28 February 2025 against the said decision of the judge.

5.  On 28 February 2025, the Registrar of Civil Appeals directed that the applicant should lodge with the court two sets of appeal bundle on or before 14 March 2025.  The applicant did not comply with this direction.  

6.  On 31 March 2025, Au JA made an order that unless the applicant lodges the appeal bundles by 4 pm on 15 April 2025, the appeal shall be dismissed automatically without further order (“the Unless Order”).  The applicant did not lodge any appeal bundle by the prescribed time and his appeal was dismissed on 15 April 2025 pursuant to the Unless Order.

7.  On 7 July 2025, the applicant filed the present summons to apply for extension of time to lodge an appeal bundle.  As the appeal has already been dismissed, we shall treat this summons as an application for relief from sanction for failing to comply with the Unless Order. 

8.  Both the Department of Justice (acting for the Director) and the Board indicated their neutral stance in this application.

9.  Having considered the papers of this case, we consider that it is appropriate for the Court of Appeal to determine the present summons on paper without holding an oral hearing pursuant to Order 59, rule 14A of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A (“RHC”).

Analysis

10.  Pursuant to Order 2 rule 4 of the RHC, where a party has failed to comply with a rule or court order, any sanction for failure to comply imposed by the rule or court order has effect unless the party in default applies to the Court for and obtains relief from the sanction within 14 days of the failure.

11.  Under Order 2 rule 5(1) of the RHC, when dealing with an application for relief from the sanction imposed by the failure to comply with a court order, the court shall consider all the circumstances, including, among other things, the interests of the administration of justice, whether the application for relief has been made promptly and whether there is a good explanation for the failure to comply.

12.  The appeal was dismissed on 15 April 2025 for failure to comply with the Unless Order.  The summons was filed on 7 July 2025, well out of the 14 days’ period stipulated under Order 2 rule 4.  The applicant explained in his summons that he did not understand the procedure of law. 

13.  The court had already given an extension of time for lodging the appeal bundle and clearly stated the consequence of non-compliance in the Unless Order. Thus, the applicant cannot be excused for not understanding the legal procedure.

14.  Furthermore, his appeal is unmeritorious.  The applicant stated that he does not agree with the decision of the Court of First Instance as it is unfair. He contended that he is at serious risk of being harmed by his enemies and he will be killed if he returns to his home country.  He further asserted that the decision makers did not consider his problem properly.  These grounds of appeal are just bare assertions without evidence in support.  The applicant has not demonstrated that the judge had made errors of law or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before the court or was otherwise plainly wrong.

15.  For the above reasons, we decline to exercise the discretion to grant relief from sanction and dismiss the summons filed on 7 July 2025.