RO AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

RO AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

The application for a supplementary judgment was refused because the existing judgment contained sufficient statements to make plain that delay would have been a successful ground had it been dealt with separately; the applicants had succeeded on other grounds so additional formal reasons were unnecessary; while expedition is integral to fairness in CAT claims, the court could not find on the evidence that respondents had unreasonably delayed implementing a compliant scheme.

Citation
RO AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: FB; Applicant: NS; Applicant: M; 1st Applicant: RO; 2nd Applicant: MO; 3rd Applicant: YO (by his father and next friend RO); 4th Applicant: WO (by his father and next friend RO); Applicant: PVK; Applicant: ND; 1st Respondent: Director of Immigration; 2nd Respondent: Secretary for Security
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 April 2009
Case Number
HCAL107/2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative Law) Concerning Cat/immigration Claims / Ruling on Application for Supplemental Judgment and Costs After Judgment (post Judgment Application)
Outcome
Application for supplemental judgment refused; order nisi as to costs on subsequent hearing days
Legal Topics
CAT Claims, Procedural Fairness, Delay, Judicial Review, Remedies, Costs
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Immigration Law Human Rights CAT Claims Procedural Fairness Delay Judicial Review +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FB

Applicant

NS

Applicant

M

Applicant

RO

1st Applicant

MO

2nd Applicant

YO (by his father and next friend RO)

3rd Applicant

WO (by his father and next friend RO)

4th Applicant

PVK

Applicant

ND

Applicant

Director of Immigration

1st Respondent

Secretary for Security

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative Law) Concerning Cat/immigration Claims / Ruling on Application for Supplemental Judgment and Costs After Judgment (post Judgment Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether delay in processing CAT claims amounts to procedural unfairness
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise inherent jurisdiction/O 20 r 11 to correct/issue a supplementary judgment
  3. 3 Whether applicants are entitled to specific reasons on each pleaded ground once they have succeeded on other grounds

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a supplementary judgment was refused because the existing judgment contained sufficient statements to make plain that delay would have been a successful ground had it been dealt with separately; the applicants had succeeded on other grounds so additional formal reasons were unnecessary; while expedition is integral to fairness in CAT claims, the court could not find on the evidence that respondents had unreasonably delayed implementing a compliant scheme.

Court Disposition

Application for supplemental judgment refused; order nisi as to costs on subsequent hearing days

Orders

  • Application for supplemental judgment refused
  • Order nisi: no order as to costs on the subsequent days of the hearing