NS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

NS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

The application for a supplementary judgment was refused because the existing judgment and reasons plainly entailed that delay in deciding CAT claims offends the high standard of fairness required by Prabhakar, applicants succeeded on other grounds and no additional written reasons were necessary; respondents must...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
NS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: FB; Applicant: NS; Applicant: M; Applicant: RO; Applicant: MO; Applicant: YO; Applicant: WO; 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
HCAL105/2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative Law) / Ruling on Application for Supplementary Judgment After Substantive Judgment and Orders Nisi
Outcome
Application for supplementary judgment refused; order nisi as to costs made
Legal Topics
Convention Against Torture Claims, Procedural Fairness, Delay, Judicial Review, Costs
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Convention Against Torture Claims Procedural Fairness Delay Judicial Review +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FB

Applicant

NS

Applicant

M

Applicant

RO

Applicant

MO

Applicant

YO

Applicant

WO

Applicant

PVK

Applicant

ND

Applicant

Director of Immigration

1st Respondent

Secretary for Security

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative Law) / Ruling on Application for Supplementary Judgment After Substantive Judgment and Orders Nisi

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a supplementary judgment was required to address alleged procedural unfairness arising from delay in determination of CAT claims
  2. 2 Whether absence of mandated time guidelines for CAT claims constitutes procedural unfairness
  3. 3 Whether the court must deliver reasons on every ground once it has decided the case on other grounds

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a supplementary judgment was refused because the existing judgment and reasons plainly entailed that delay in deciding CAT claims offends the high standard of fairness required by Prabhakar, applicants succeeded on other grounds and no additional written reasons were necessary; respondents must implement an expeditious assessment scheme but no present finding of unreasonable delay was made.

Court Disposition

Application for supplementary judgment refused; order nisi as to costs made

Orders

  • Application for supplementary judgment refused
  • Order nisi that there be no order for costs on the subsequent days of the hearing