Case Detail

LATIF MOHAMMAD ABDUL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Related cases with same parties

CACV1026/2025PHAM VAN DUNG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
CACV11/2022NNABUIHE GIFT EKEOMA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
CACV112/2023SRI-RAHAYU AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
CACV114/2024BABAR IMRAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
CACV1154/2025KHAN ZABAT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
CACV1165/2025NGUYEN XUAN CUONG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
CACV1167/2025MUHAMMAD KHALID v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
CACV1168/2025NGUYEN THI HUONG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
CACV118/2020NILA AGUSTINA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
CACV1235/2025FRAZ DIL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
CACV1238/2025NGUYEN VAN THANH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
CACV1244/2025KHAROTAI HAYAT GUL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
CACV1250/2025SUMEET RANA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
CACV1258/2025NGUYEN HA NAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
CACV126/2025SANJAY KUMAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
CACV130/2018BEGUM KHADIJA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
CACV13/2025ISLAM MD RAFIQUL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
CACV135/2024TO THI CHAU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
CACV137/2022KHUC THI MAI TRANG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD
CACV14/2022ARSHAD MUHAMMAD ALIAS FAISAL ALIAS MUHAMMAD FAISAL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Files (2)

[2019] HKCA 1171-EN-2019-10-25

LATIF MOHAMMAD ABDUL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HTML content

CACV 246/2018

[2019] HKCA 1171

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 246 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1003/2017)

________________________

BETWEEN
	LATIF MOHAMMAD ABDUL	Applicant
	and
	TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD	Putative Respondent
	and
	DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION	Putative Interested Party

__________________________

Before:

Hon Lam VP, Barma and Au JJA in Court

Dates of Written Submissions:	2 and 15 August 2019
Date of Judgment:	25 October 2019

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1. On 28 June 2019, the Court (Lam VP and Barma JA) handed down a judgment ([2019] HKCA 701) dismissing the applicant’s summons for relief in respect of an unless order. One of the reasons for refusal of relief was that the appeal was brought in respect of the refusal to extend time to apply for judicial review which is an interlocutory order. By reason of Section 14AA of the High Court Ordinance, leave to appeal should be sought before the appeal can be entertained. Given the obvious abuse of process (this being a second application for judicial review in respect of the same decision), leave would not be granted: see paragraph 10(d) of the judgment.

2. By a notice of motion filed on 2 July 2019, the applicant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment.

3. It was stated in his notice of motion that the Court was wrong in holding that there was no substance in his claim. The applicant also mentioned the poor performance of his legal representative and reiterated his complaint about the insufficient time for him to prepare for the hearing before the Torture Claims Appeal Board.

4. In his affirmation dated 2 July 2019, the applicant deposed that the Court was wrong in holding that there was no state acquiescence or involvement and that it failed to find out the details of the current situation in Bangladesh.

5. In his written submission lodged on 2 August 2019, the applicant set out the background of his case, and cited authorities for the propositions that high standards of fairness were required in the determination of a torture claim and that there were minimum standards of procedural fairness at common law.

6. The Department of Justice, acting for the Director of Immigration, lodged a written submission on 15 August 2019 opposing this application.

7. Since the appeal could not be brought without Section 14AA leave and the leave was not obtained, there could not be further appeal by reason of Section 14AB of the High Court Ordinance which provides that the refusal of Section 14AA leave by the Court of Appeal is final.

8. Further, by reason of the duplication of proceedings, the present set of proceedings is obviously an abuse of process, see para 10(c) of the judgment. The applicant does not advance any argument in this respect.

9. Accordingly, we dismiss the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

(M H Lam)
Vice President

(Aarif Barma)
Justice of Appeal

(Thomas Au)
Justice of Appeal

The applicant acting in person

Ms Patricia Lam, Government Counsel, of the Department of Justice, for the putative interested party

CACV 246/2018

[2019] HKCA 701

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 246 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1003/2017)

_________________________

BETWEEN
	LATIF MOHAMMAD ABDUL	Applicant
	and
	TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD	Putative Respondent
	and
	DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION	Putative Interested Party

_________________________

Before: Hon Lam VP and Barma JA in Court

Dates of Written Submissions: 7, 28 March and 21 May 2018

Date of Judgment: 28 June 2019

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1. In HCAL 1003/2017, the applicant sought leave on 4 December 2017 to bring judicial review in respect of a decision of the Board of 8 February 2017. The application was refused by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan on 15 June 2018 who refused to grant extension of time for the judicial review application to be brought. In this appeal, the applicant sought to reverse the order of 15 June 2018.

2. Previously, he had brought judicial review against the same decision in HCAL 33/2017. Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock refused leave on 25 August 2017. The applicant did not appeal against that decision. He did not inform Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan of his unsuccessful attempt in HCAL 33/2017.

3. On appeal, the duplication of proceedings was brought to the attention of the Court by a Respondent’s Notice of 11 July 2018 filed by the putative interested party.

4. On 30 August 2018, the Court made an unless order in these terms:

“ 1. unless the Applicant shall lodge and serve submissions (3 sets) on the Department of Justice by 13 September 2018 explaining why the appeal is not an abuse of process, the appeal will be struck out on 14 September 2018 without further order.
2. upon the lodging of submissions in accordance with paragraph 1 above, the Department of Justice shall lodge submissions in response by 21 September 2018.”

5. The applicant was notified of the unless order by post sent to the address he stated on the Notice of Appeal.

6. The Applicant did not lodge submissions to dispute that by virtue of the duplication with HCAL 33/2017 the appeal is an abuse of process.

7. Pursuant to the unless order, the appeal was struck out on 14 September 2018.

8. About 5 months later, the applicant took out a summons on 12 February 2019 seeking relief in respect of the unless order. He supported the application by an affirmation of the same date. He claimed that he was not aware of the unless order because he had no key to the letter box and his landlord had been away.

9. In his affirmation, he did not explain why he did not appeal against the decision in HCAL 33/2017. Nor did he dispute that HCAL 1003/2017 was a challenge in respect of the same Board decision.

10. Having considered the applicant’s summons and affirmation and the submissions lodged by the parties, we refuse to grant relief for the following reasons:

(a) We do not accept the applicant’s explanation for not having notice of the unless order. It is incredible that he had not got access to the letter box from August 2018 to February 2019. If he had neglected the unsatisfactory state of access to correspondence for such a long time, he only had himself to blame for the default;
(b) The application for relief was not brought within 14 days of the failure to comply as required by Order 2 Rule 4. We do not see any good reason for extending that time limit in view of the obvious lack of merit in the applicant’s case as explained below;
(c) HCAL 1003/2017 is obviously an abuse of process due to its duplication with HCAL 33/2017, see the relevant principle discussed in Begum Khadija v Torture Claims Appeal Board[2018] HKCA 571;
(d) The appeal against refusal of extension of time was brought without leave which is not permissible: see MI v Permanent Secretary for Security[2018] HKCA 419. In view of the obvious abuse of process as discussed, such leave would not be granted.

11. We dismiss the summons of 12 February 2019.

(M H Lam)	(Aarif Barma)
Vice President	Justice of Appeal

The applicant acting in person

Ms Patricia Lam, Government Counsel, of the Department of Justice, for the putative interested party