DHESSI KIRANJEET KAUR AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

DHESSI KIRANJEET KAUR AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

The Director correctly applied s37ZO by finding the applicants failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change and no realistic prospect of success existed; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness, so leave to apply for judicial review is refused, and an RPO is justified to prevent habitual vexatious re-litigation of finally determined non-refoulement claims.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 3296
Parties
1st Applicant: Dhessi Kiranjeet Kaur; 2nd Applicant: Dhessi Gursahib Singh; 3rd Applicant: Dhessi Ekjot Kaur; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 December 2023
Case Number
HCAL1497/2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Leave Stage; Decision Refusing Leave and Granting Restricted Proceedings Order
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the Applicants
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Unified Screening Mechanism, Subsequent Claim Under S37 ZO, Restricted Proceedings Order (vexatious Litigation), Inherent Jurisdiction, Minor Specific Representation
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Public Law Procedural Law Non Refoulement Unified Screening Mechanism Subsequent Claim Under S37 ZO Restricted Proceedings Order (vexatious Litigation) +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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dhessi Kiranjeet Kaur

1st Applicant

Dhessi Gursahib Singh

2nd Applicant

Dhessi Ekjot Kaur

3rd Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Leave Stage; Decision Refusing Leave and Granting Restricted Proceedings Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicants established a significant change of circumstances sufficient under s37ZO to permit a subsequent non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the Director erred in law or acted unfairly in refusing permission to make a subsequent claim
  3. 3 Whether a Restricted Proceedings Order (RPO) should be made to prevent vexatious re-litigation

Ratio Decidendi

The Director correctly applied s37ZO by finding the applicants failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change and no realistic prospect of success existed; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness, so leave to apply for judicial review is refused, and an RPO is justified to prevent habitual vexatious re-litigation of finally determined non-refoulement claims.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the Applicants

Orders

  • Leave for the Applicants to apply for Judicial Review refused
  • Applicants prohibited from commencing or continuing any fresh proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim in the High Court without the leave of a Judge of the Court of First Instance