EDWEAD JOHN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

EDWEAD JOHN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

The Director lawfully refused permission for a subsequent claim because the Applicant failed to show a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success under s37ZO; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness and no prospect of success in judicial review; an RPO was justified under s27 and the court's inherent jurisdiction to prevent persistent vexatious re-litigation, and was made for a fixed period of five years with conditions for leave applications.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 57
Parties
Applicant: Edwead John; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 January 2023
Case Number
HCAL604/2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Leave Application Refused; Restricted Proceedings Order Made
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against Applicant.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Torture Claim (s37 Zo), Restricted Proceedings Order, Vexatious Litigation, Unified Screening Mechanism, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Public Law Non Refoulement Subsequent Torture Claim (s37 Zo) Restricted Proceedings Order +3 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edwead John

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Leave Application Refused; Restricted Proceedings Order Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicant satisfied s37ZO(2) by showing a significant change of circumstances and a realistic prospect of success for a subsequent non-refoulement/torture claim
  2. 2 Whether the Director erred in law or procedurally in refusing permission for a subsequent claim
  3. 3 Whether a Restricted Proceedings Order (RPO) should be made under s27 High Court Ordinance or the court's inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The Director lawfully refused permission for a subsequent claim because the Applicant failed to show a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success under s37ZO; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness and no prospect of success in judicial review; an RPO was justified under s27 and the court's inherent jurisdiction to prevent persistent vexatious re-litigation, and was made for a fixed period of five years with conditions for leave applications.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against Applicant.

Orders

  • Applicant prohibited from commencing or continuing any proceedings in the High Court relating to any non-refoulement claim without leave of a Judge of the Court of First Instance
  • All leave applications to be made to the Judge in charge of the Constitutional and Administrative Law List or a judge designated by the Chief Judge