MASANTHIAH TEERAPONG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
HTML content
HCAL 178/2024
[2024] HKCFI 1779
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST
NO 178 of 2024
_____________
BETWEEN
| Masanthiah Teerapong | Applicant | |
| and | ||
| Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office | Putative Respondent | |
| and | ||
| Director of Immigration | Putative Interested Party |
_____________
| Before: | Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung in Chambers |
| Date of Decision: | 26 July 2024 |
_____________
D E C I S I O N
_____________
1. The applicant applied for extension of time to appeal the Court’s decision by way of Form CALL-1 dated 19 March 2024 (“the Court’s decision”).
2. The Court’s decision dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 9 July 2018 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office because it was a duplicated application, which is an abuse of the court’s process[1].
3. The applicant had admitted that it was a duplicated application and he apologized for the duplication.
4. It was on that basis the Court dismissed his application by the Court’s decision.
5. The applicant has no reason to appeal against the Court’s decision.
6. I refuse to extend time for him to appeal out of time.
| (K.W. Lung) | |
| Deputy High Court Judge |
The applicant was unrepresented.
[1] Fabio Arlyn Timogan, Salaudin Rabia & Salaudin Faheem v Evan Ruth, Esq, Adjudicator of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office[2020] HKCA 971, Hon Lam, Barma and Au JJA, 27 November 2020
“25. In Khan Kamran v Torture Claims Appeal Board, [2020] HKCA 380, the Court of Appeal held that it is an abuse of process for an Applicant to file a second application seeking judicial review in respect of the same Board decision and it was a breach of the duty of full and frank disclosure to make such application without stating that there had been a previous unsuccessful application for leave for judicial review of the same decision. Such application is liable to be struck out. It was further held that it would be appropriate to strike out an appeal against such decision as an abuse of process in such circumstances.”