HANGILI GEDARA IMALKA PRIYADARSHANINE AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

HANGILI GEDARA IMALKA PRIYADARSHANINE AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

The court found the applicants failed to show any significant change of circumstances or to provide new material satisfying s37ZO; the first applicant relied on the same discredited evidence previously rejected by the Board; there was no realistic prospect of success for the subsequent claim; and an RPO was justified to prevent abuse of process and re-litigation of identical claims, extended to the child whose claim depends on the same facts.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 1918
Parties
1st Applicant: Hangili Gedara Imalka Priyadarshanine; 2nd Applicant: Lokurumage Niyomi Devindi; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 June 2025
Case Number
HCAL610/2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review and Show Cause Hearing for Restricted Proceedings Order
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order (RPO) made against the applicants
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim (s37 Zo), Restricted Proceedings Order, Abuse of Process, Torture Claim, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Child Specific Considerations
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Public Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim (s37 Zo) Restricted Proceedings Order +4 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 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hangili Gedara Imalka Priyadarshanine

1st Applicant

Lokurumage Niyomi Devindi

2nd Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review and Show Cause Hearing for Restricted Proceedings Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the subsequent claim satisfied s37ZO (significant change of circumstances and realistic prospect of success)
  2. 2 Whether leave to apply for judicial review is reasonably arguable
  3. 3 Whether a restricted proceedings order (RPO) and extended order should be made to prevent abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the applicants failed to show any significant change of circumstances or to provide new material satisfying s37ZO; the first applicant relied on the same discredited evidence previously rejected by the Board; there was no realistic prospect of success for the subsequent claim; and an RPO was justified to prevent abuse of process and re-litigation of identical claims, extended to the child whose claim depends on the same facts.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order (RPO) made against the applicants

Orders

  • Leave application dismissed
  • Restricted proceedings order prohibiting applicants from commencing or continuing any fresh proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim in the High Court or appeals without prior leave of the Court of First Instance