SIVANETHTHI CHITRANANDA ABERUWAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 2770/2019

[2025] HKCFI 5720

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2770 OF 2019

____________________

____________________

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

Introduction

1.  This is the Applicants’ application by summons filed on 20 October 2025 for extension of time to appeal the order of this Court dated 16 September 2025 (the “Order”) refusing him leave to apply for judicial review (the “leave application”) of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office.

2.  Under Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, where an application for leave to apply for judicial review is refused by a judge, the applicant may appeal against the judge’s order to the Court of Appeal within 14 days after such order.  By the time his summons was filed, it is twenty days out of time.  In Jagg Singh and Torture Claims Appeal Board/non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office^[1], the Court of Appeal held that in considering whether to extend time for appealing a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review, the court will take into account: (1) the length of 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.  If the delay is not substantial, it would be readily condoned if there is some credible explanation and an arguable ground of appeal.  If the first three factors are resolved against granting leave, there is no need to consider prejudice to the respondent.

Reasons and explanations for the delay

3.  The delay of twenty days in an appeal period of 14 days is substantial.  The Applicant’s explanation for the delay as stated in his summons is that he had changed his address and did not receive the Order on time.  The Applicant appeared before this Court at the oral hearing on 3 September 2025.  At the conclusion of the hearing, he was asked to confirm the address he gave to the Court that morning is correct which he did confirm.  He was reminded to inform the Court immediately if he should change his address.  He indicated that he understood.  The Order and Form CALL-1 were sent to his address as confirmed by him on 16 September 2025.  They were returned undelivered on 20 October 2025 and marked “no such address”.  The envelope containing the Order and Form CALL-1 was correctly addressed.  The Court understands that the addressing system in villages in the New Territories is chaotic and sometimes postal delivery may be difficult.  Accepting that the Applicant had not received the Order in time, leave is granted to the Applicant to file his appeal within a further 14 days from the date of this decision, ie before 4 pm on 5 December 2025.  In view of the difficulties in postal delivery, the court staff will inform him by telephone of this decision if he does not attend court to collect the decision in person.