YESI KRISTINA AYU INDRASWARI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 2218/2023

[2025] HKCFI 4094

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2218 OF 2023

____________

____________

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

Introduction

1.  This is the Applicants’ application by summons filed on 30 July 2025 for extension of time to appeal the order of this Court dated 24 April 2025 (the “Order”) refusing her leave to apply for judicial review 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.  The Applicant is one month and twenty-four 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. 

Discussion and conclusion

3.  The delay of one month and twenty-four days in an appeal period of 14 days is substantial.  The Applicant’s explanation for the delay as stated in her Summons and supporting affirmation is that she received the Order late.  It is just a bare assertion without particulars.  To assist her to make a proper application for extension of time, the Applicant was given directions by letter on 8 August 2025 to file a statement within fourteen days of the directions: (1) explaining why it took her one month and twenty-four days to apply for extension of time to appeal; (2) stating the date when and circumstances under which the Order was first brought to her notice exhibiting a copy of the relevant entry in the Prisoners’ Incoming Mail Register from Nei Kwu Correctional Institute where she is being detained; and (3) setting out the grounds of her intended appeal.  The information under the first two items are required to enable the Court to assess the reasonableness of the delay and the credibility of the explanation.  The grounds of the intended appeal is an essential requirement in an application for extension of time to appeal.  It is required to enable the Court to assess the prospect of success in the intended appeal on which the exercise of the Court’s discretion to grant leave depends.

4.  As at the date of this decision, more than a month has lapsed.  The Applicant’s has not responded.  The inference to be drawn from her failure to respond is that she has no reasonable explanation for the delay and no arguable grounds of appeal to offer and she lacks the will to prosecute her intended appeal.  There is no basis upon which the Court may exercise its discretion to grant her extension of time.  Hence, her application for extension of time to appeal is refused. 

5.  For the above reasons, the Applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal is refused.