Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Hounkpedji Messanh v Torture Claims Appeal Board

Judgment Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date23 October 2018
Neutral Citation[2018] HKCA 734
Year2018
Judgement NumberCACV164/2017
Subject MatterCivil Appeal
CourtCourt of Appeal (Hong Kong)
CACV164A/2017 HOUNKPEDJI MESSANH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 164/2017

[2018] HKCA 734

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 164 OF 2017

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 105/2017)

____________________________

BETWEEN
HOUNKPEDJI MESSANH Applicant
and
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD Putative Respondent

____________________________

Before: Hon Cheung CJHC, Lam VP and Poon JA in Court
Date of Written Submissions: 24 August 2018
Date of Judgement: 23 October 2018

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

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

1. By a judgment dated 16 March 2018, this court (Cheung CJHC and Lam VP) dismissed the applicant’s appeal from the decision of Chung J dated 7 July 2017 refusing him leave to apply for judicial review.

2. From that judgment, the applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on the ground, which was also said to be a matter of great general and public importance, that the high standards of fairness as laid down by the courts rendered the applicant to be entitled of free legal representation in the appeal before the Torture Claims Appeal Board.

3. Mr Sutherland, counsel for the applicant, lodged his submissions on 24 August 2018. In the submissions, counsel argued that the lack of legal representation in the appeal before the board was not in accordance with the high standards of fairness as prescribed by the Court of Final Appeal in Saktevel Prabakar v Secretary of Justice (2004) 7 HKCFAR 187 and by the Court of First Instance in FB v Directory of Immigration [2009] 2 HKRD 346.

4. As the applicant did not apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal within time, good and sufficient ground must be shown by the applicant before the court will exercise its discretion to grant an extension of time for him to do so: section 24(5) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484), see: Full Wisdom Holdings Ltd v Traffic Stream Infrastructure Co Ltd CACV 266/2003, 27 July 2004; Bowlstar (HK) Ltd v Ho Kwai Po CACV 156/2006, 10 July 2007, Elijah Saatori v Raffles Medical Group CACV 109/2008, 11 March 2009, and Tsit Wing (Hong Kong) Company Limited & Others v TWG Tea Company Pte Ltd & Another (unreported) CACV 191/2013, 29 January 2015.

5. Surprisingly...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT