RE SUYATI

HCAL 211/2018

[2019] HKCFI 522

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 211 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  On 24 September 2018 Deputy High Court Judge Lam refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) in dismissing her appeal/petition regarding her non-refoulement claim upon finding none of the grounds put forward by her as reasonably arguable or with any prospect of success in her intended application.

2.  The applicant now by a summons issued on 26 October 2018 seeks leave to appeal against that decision out of time, as the 14-day period for her to lodge her appeal under Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A already expired on 8 October 2018, and hence she was late by 18 days.

3.  In considering whether to extend time for appealing against a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review, the Court will have regard to (1) the length of the 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.

4.  In the applicant’s case a delay of 18 days may not be said to be substantial or excessive, for which she explained in her supporting affirmation of the same date that when the letter from the Court with the decision of the same date arrived in the mail box of her rented residence, the key of which was kept by her landlord who happened to be out of town until 24 October 2018 and hence she was unable to get the decision until then which caused the delay, and for which she immediately issued her present summons two days later for the Court’s indulgence.  In the circumstances I am prepared to accept her explanation for her delay, and proceed to consider the merits, if any, of her intended appeal.

5.  She did not, however, either in her summons or in her affirmation produce any draft or proposed ground for her appeal, or provide any particulars as to any error in the decision, or why she considers it an unfair or unreasonable decision, and at the hearing she conceded that she was unable to think of any valid ground to appeal against that decision, but that she merely wanted further time to remain in Hong Kong as her problems in her home country have remained unresolved, which of course cannot be accepted as any valid ground or argument for her intended appeal.

6.  In the premises it would be futile to extend time for what appears to me a hopeless appeal.  Accordingly I refuse her application for leave to appeal out of time, and dismiss her summons.