AM AND OTHERS v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

AM AND OTHERS v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

The ex parte leave was set aside because the Applicants failed to demonstrate good reason to extend time after an inordinate delay; the intended judicial review was otiose given the Applicants' non-refoulement claims would be assessed under the USM, and the Applicants' failure to disclose the ongoing USM proceedings was a material non-disclosure reinforcing the decision to set aside the ex parte leave.

Citation
AM AND OTHERS v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Applicant: AM; 2nd Applicant: AS; 3rd Applicant: AUZ; 4th Applicant: ASU; 5th Applicant: AN; 1st Respondent: The Director of Immigration; 2nd Respondent: Wesley Wong
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 February 2017
Case Number
HCAL10/2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Leave for Delay, Lack of Utility and Material Non Disclosure
Outcome
Application of the 1st Respondent allowed; ex parte leave set aside; extension of time refused.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Ex Parte Leave, Non Refoulement, Unified Screening Mechanism (usm), Material Non Disclosure, Prejudice, Abuse of Process
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Public Law Judicial Review Extension of Time Ex Parte Leave Non Refoulement Unified Screening Mechanism (usm) +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AM

1st Applicant

AS

2nd Applicant

AUZ

3rd Applicant

ASU

4th Applicant

AN

5th Applicant

The Director of Immigration

1st Respondent

Wesley Wong

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Leave for Delay, Lack of Utility and Material Non Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was an inordinate and inexcusable delay warranting refusal of extension of time
  2. 2 Whether the judicial review lacked utility because the Applicants' non-refoulement claims would be assessed under the USM
  3. 3 Whether failure to disclose ongoing USM proceedings amounted to material non-disclosure justifying setting aside ex parte leave

Ratio Decidendi

The ex parte leave was set aside because the Applicants failed to demonstrate good reason to extend time after an inordinate delay; the intended judicial review was otiose given the Applicants' non-refoulement claims would be assessed under the USM, and the Applicants' failure to disclose the ongoing USM proceedings was a material non-disclosure reinforcing the decision to set aside the ex parte leave.

Court Disposition

Application of the 1st Respondent allowed; ex parte leave set aside; extension of time refused.

Orders

  • Ex parte leave to apply for judicial review is set aside.
  • Costs to follow the event; order nisi that Applicants pay both Respondents their costs of these proceedings including this application to be taxed if not agreed.