MAHTUMATUL AMALIYA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 779/2020

[2026] HKCFI 2328

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 779 OF 2020

________________________

BETWEEN

________________

________________

D E C I S I O N

________________

1.  By a summons issued on 12 March 2026 (“Summons”), the Applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal my order dated 5 September 2025 (“Order”) wherein I had refused her application for leave to apply for judicial review of a decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“TCAB”)/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“NRCPO”) dated 17 April 2020 (“TCAB Decision”).

2.  In dealing with such I have had regard below to the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the prospects of the intended appeal, and the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time is granted (see Re Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226; Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346; Nupur Mst [2018] HKCA 524; Nguyen Van Quyen [2025] HKCA 510).

3.  In the Summons, the Applicant asked the Court to “extend the time period” and to consider her late appeal. She also said she is “so sorry that I did not receive the court letter” and that her situation in Indonesia is still very bad. However, the Summons contains no grounds of appeal.

4.  In relation to the length of the delay, as the 14-day period for the Applicant to appeal against the Order expired on 19 September 2025 (RHC O 53 r 3(4)), the application is over 5 months late. This delay is clearly substantial and inordinate.

5.  I do not accept that I have been given a satisfactory explanation for the delay. While I note that certain correspondence from the Court has been returned undelivered for various reasons[1], all such correspondence was sent to her latest known address as of 14 May 2025, as provided to the court by staff of the Director[2]. Moreover, in the Summons she has given yet another address in Kilung Street, Sham Shui Po, which is neither the address originally stated in the Form 86, nor her address as of 14 May 2025. I hence do not see that she has complied with her duty to give the court an address to which correspondence or notice can come to her attention in a timely manner. She must therefore bear the consequences of any delay or failure of communication arising from her failure to do so (Hasmi Rizwan Imran HKCA 439 at §§14-15; Rai Tika Kumari [2025] HKCA 78).

6.  I will nevertheless go on to consider the prospects of success of the intended appeal, which are important as the court will not grant an extension of time to pursue a hopeless appeal (Tran Van Anh [2025] HKCA 408). As regards such I had, in my decision, reviewed the TCAB Decision with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, applying the enhanced Wednesbury standard, and found no reasonably arguable public law grounds to vitiate such. I do not see any proper ground of appeal with any prospect of success, particularly when the Applicant has not identified any ground of appeal or any basis (in the nature of an error of law, any failure to take account of relevant matters already placed before the court, or that I was plainly wrong) on which the Court of Appeal would reverse my decision (Nupur Mst, supra).

7.  In the premises, it would be futile to extend time and would clearly needlessly prejudice the respondent for what appears to be a hopeless appeal.

8.  I hence refuse the application and dismiss the Summons, and would do so even if I have erred in relation to the reasons and explanation for the delay.