LAVADO MARY JANE MABAO AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

LAVADO MARY JANE MABAO AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants relied on the same facts already rejected, there was no significant change under s37ZO and no realistic prospect of success; a five‑year Restricted Proceedings Order was justified to prevent abuse of process by barring fresh non-refoulement proceedings without leave.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 587
Parties
1st Applicant: Lavado Mary Jane Mabao; 2nd Applicant: Mehmood Wajid Mehmood; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 March 2024
Case Number
HCAL1694/2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused; Restricted Proceedings Order Made
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicants.
Legal Topics
Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo), Abuse of Process, Risk Assessment for Non Refoulement
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Law Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo) +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lavado Mary Jane Mabao

1st Applicant

Mehmood Wajid Mehmood

2nd Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused; Restricted Proceedings Order Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants satisfied s37ZO (significant change) to justify a subsequent non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether there was a realistic prospect of success to grant leave for judicial review
  3. 3 Whether a Restricted Proceedings Order was necessary to prevent abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants relied on the same facts already rejected, there was no significant change under s37ZO and no realistic prospect of success; a five‑year Restricted Proceedings Order was justified to prevent abuse of process by barring fresh non-refoulement proceedings without leave.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

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