延長上訴時間的條件？申請駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：CHU ON FONG WINTER v THE APPEAL PANEL (HOUSING) and THE HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：林文瀚副庭長、Barma 上訴法官 - 判決日期：2017年7月20日 ### 案情摘要 申請人曾向原訟法庭申請司法覆核許可，質疑上訴委員會（房屋）維持房屋委員會發出的遷出通知書的決定。原訟法庭法官區慶祥於2017年3月22日以書面形式拒絕批予許可，理由是申請人的司法覆核理據缺乏實質理據。申請人未在14天內提出上訴，而是於2017年4月5日向區慶祥法官申請延長上訴時間，該申請於2017年4月12日被駁回。隨後，申請人於2017年4月27日向上訴法庭申請延長上訴時間。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議是申請人是否有充分理由獲批延長上訴時間，以就原訟法庭拒絕司法覆核許可的決定提出上訴。上訴法庭需考慮申請人延誤的理由是否可獲原諒，以及其擬提出的上訴是否具有合理成功機會。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭指出，即使延誤可獲原諒，法院也不會批准延長時間，除非擬提出的上訴具有合理成功機會。申請人未能提交任何上訴草擬理據或其他材料以證明其上訴的潛在實質理據。儘管申請人解釋其延誤是因不熟悉法律程序和術語，但法院認為其未能證明擬提出的上訴有任何成功機會。因此，法院駁回了延長時間的申請。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭駁回了申請人於2017年4月27日提出的傳票，即延長上訴時間的申請。這意味著申請人無法就原訟法庭拒絕司法覆核許可的決定提出上訴。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了在申請延長上訴時間時，申請人必須證明其擬提出的上訴具有合理成功機會，即使延誤的理由可獲原諒。僅僅解釋不熟悉法律程序並不足以彌補上訴缺乏實質理據的缺陷。 --- ### 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: CHU ON FONG WINTER v THE APPEAL PANEL (HOUSING) and THE HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Lam VP and Barma JA - Date of Judgment: 20 July 2017 ### Factual Background The applicant sought leave for judicial review in the Court of First Instance against the Appeal Panel (Housing)'s decision to uphold a Notice to Quit issued by the Housing Authority. Au J refused leave on papers on 22 March 2017, finding the grounds for judicial review to be without merit. The applicant did not appeal within 14 days. Instead, she applied to Au J on 5 April 2017 for an extension of time to appeal, which was dismissed on 12 April 2017. Subsequently, the applicant filed a summons on 27 April 2017 with the Court of Appeal seeking an extension of time to appeal. ### Key Legal Issues The main legal issue was whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to appeal the Court of First Instance's refusal of leave for judicial review. The Court of Appeal had to consider if the applicant's delay was excusable and if her intended appeal had a reasonable prospect of success. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal held that even if the delay was excusable, an extension of time would not be granted unless the intended appeal had a reasonable prospect of success. The applicant failed to provide any draft grounds of appeal or other material to demonstrate the potential merit of her appeal. Despite her explanation of unfamiliarity with legal procedures and jargon, the court found no prospect of success in the intended appeal. Therefore, the application for extension of time was dismissed. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's summons dated 27 April 2017, which sought an extension of time to appeal. This means the applicant was not permitted to appeal the refusal of leave for judicial review by the Court of First Instance. ### Key Takeaways This case reiterates that when seeking an extension of time to appeal, an applicant must demonstrate that the intended appeal has a reasonable prospect of success, even if the delay is excusable. Merely citing unfamiliarity with legal procedures is insufficient to overcome a lack of merit in the appeal. --- ### 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.