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

HCAL 914/2021

[2026] HKCFI 3221

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 914 OF 2021

________________________

BETWEEN

________________

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

Introduction

1.  By summons (“Summons”) dated 3 March 2026, the applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the order of this court dated 13 February 2026 (“Order”), dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 11 May 2021. The Order together with the decision of this court set out in the prescribed Form Call-1 were posted to the applicant by ordinary post to the applicant’s updated address she confirmed at the hearing of the Leave Application on 27 January 2026 (“Last Known Address”). There has been no return of the post undelivered.

2.  Before the scheduled hearing for the Summons on 12 May 2026, the court had sent to the applicant by ordinary post to the address provided in the Summons (which is the same as the Last Known Address), a notice of hearing dated 16 April 2026 with a reminder of the consequence of absence[1]. The applicant did not turn up at the hearing. Telephone calls were made to the applicant’s given telephone number, but to no avail. The information before this court shows that the said notice of hearing has not been returned undelivered through the post.

3.  In the circumstances, this court will dispose of the Summons according to the materials already placed before the court.

The law

4.  Pursuant to O 53 r 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, the time limit for an appeal to the Court of Appeal is 14 days (after the order of the court). The deadline for the applicant to file his appeal expired on 28 February 2026. The Summons was 3 days’ late.

5.  The guidelines governing the discretion for an extension of time to appeal against a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review therefore apply. A Court shall have regard to (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reason for the delay; (iii) the prospect of success of the intended appeal; and (iv) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted: see Re MK HCMP 2609/2016, 10 January 2017; Chu On Fong Winter v The Appeal Panel (Housing) HCMP 982/2017, 20 July 2017; Islam Raja Rais v Director of Immigration HCMP 881/2017, 26 June 2017; Re Gurang Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226; Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346; and Nguyen Thi Hong Thuy [2024] HKCA 1172.

Discussion

6.  A delay of 3 days is not significant. Nonetheless, the applicant shall still be required to provide reason for the delay. In her affirmation in support of the Summons, the applicant explained that she did not receive any post from the court and that she only found out the Order and the decision after conducting a search on the court file. In my view, this is a bare assertion. The applicant did not advance any proposed grounds of appeal. In the absence of any proposed grounds for the intended appeal, I am not satisfied that there is a good prospect of success in her intended appeal.

7.  For the reasons stated above, this court is disinclined to exercise its discretion to grant any extension of time to the applicant to appeal against the Order, and accordingly dismiss the Summons.