DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION v. MD HASNAIN

DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION v. MD HASNAIN

The leave application was dismissed because it was plainly not reasonably arguable: the Form 86 and supporting affirmation failed to specify grounds and the Director was entitled to conclude there was no significant change of circumstances or realistic prospect of success under s37ZO, relying also on prior adverse findings; a Section 27 order was justified because the applicant had habitually and persistently instituted multiple groundless proceedings on the same subject matter, constituting an abuse of process, and a restrictive but time-limited order was proportionate.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 1610
Parties
Applicant/defendant: MD Hasnain; Respondent/plaintiff: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 June 2021
Case Number
HCMP603/2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Refusal to Permit Subsequent Non Refoulement Claim; Section 27 (vexatious Litigant) Application / Decision on Leave and Grant of Section 27 Order
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Section 27 order granted against applicant
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Claim, Subsequent Claim (s37 Zo), Judicial Review Leave to Apply, Vexatious Proceedings (s27 High Court Ordinance), Costs
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Non Refoulement Torture Claim Subsequent Claim (s37 Zo) Judicial Review Leave to Apply +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MD Hasnain

Applicant/defendant

Director of Immigration

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of Refusal to Permit Subsequent Non Refoulement Claim; Section 27 (vexatious Litigant) Application / Decision on Leave and Grant of Section 27 Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director lawfully refused permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement/torture claim under s37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's application for leave to apply for judicial review disclosed arguable grounds
  3. 3 Whether a Section 27 order should be made on the basis of habitual, persistent and groundless institution of vexatious proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The leave application was dismissed because it was plainly not reasonably arguable: the Form 86 and supporting affirmation failed to specify grounds and the Director was entitled to conclude there was no significant change of circumstances or realistic prospect of success under s37ZO, relying also on prior adverse findings; a Section 27 order was justified because the applicant had habitually and persistently instituted multiple groundless proceedings on the same subject matter, constituting an abuse of process, and a restrictive but time-limited order was proportionate.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Section 27 order granted against applicant

Orders

  • No legal proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim of the Applicant shall be instituted by him without leave of the Court of First Instance
  • No legal proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim previously instituted by the Applicant shall be continued by him without leave of the Court of First Instance