延長上訴時間的申請是否獲批？申請駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：Re: MK - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：林文瀚副庭長、袁家寧上訴法官 - 判決日期：2017年1月10日 ### 案情摘要 申請人MK就其司法覆核許可申請被陳嘉信法官於2016年9月6日駁回一事，未能在法例規定的時間內提出上訴。他於2016年9月30日（以個人身份）提交了延長上訴時間的申請，但未在誓章中解釋延誤原因，亦未在傳票或誓章中列出上訴理由。儘管法庭指示他提交支持申請的陳詞，並發出提醒信，申請人仍未提交任何陳詞或上訴理由草稿。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於，在申請人未能解釋延誤原因、未提交上訴理由草稿及未按法庭指示提交陳詞的情況下，法庭是否應行使酌情權批准其延長上訴時間的申請。 ### 判決理由 法庭認為，申請人未能提交支持其延長上訴時間申請的陳詞，亦未提供任何上訴理由草稿以供法庭評估其可爭辯性。在缺乏這些基本資料的情況下，法庭沒有基礎行使酌情權批准延長上訴時間。因此，法庭駁回了申請人的傳票。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 高等法院上訴法庭駁回了申請人於2016年9月30日提交的延長上訴時間的傳票申請。由於申請人未能提供上訴理由草稿及支持陳詞，法庭拒絕行使酌情權。 ### 判決啟示 null --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: Re: MK - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Lam VP and Yuen JA - Date of Judgment: 10 January 2017 ### Factual Background The applicant, MK, failed to appeal within the prescribed time against the refusal of his application for leave to apply for judicial review by A Chan J on 6 September 2016. On 30 September 2016, acting in person, he filed an application for an extension of time to appeal. However, he provided no explanation for the delay in his affirmation, nor did he set out his intended grounds of appeal in the summons or affirmation. Despite court directions for submissions and a reminder letter, the applicant failed to lodge any submissions or draft grounds of appeal. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question was whether the court should exercise its discretion to grant the applicant's application for an extension of time to appeal, given his failure to explain the delay, provide draft grounds of appeal, or submit supporting arguments as directed by the court. ### Ratio Decidendi The court held that the applicant failed to lodge submissions in support of his application for an extension of time and did not produce any draft grounds of appeal to enable the court to assess their arguability. In the complete absence of these essential materials, there was no basis for the court to exercise its discretion to extend the time to appeal. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant's summons. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's summons dated 30 September 2016 for an extension of time to appeal. The court declined to exercise its discretion due to the applicant's failure to provide draft grounds of appeal and supporting submissions. ### Key Takeaways null --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.