M v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

M v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

The application for a supplemental judgment was refused because the delivered judgment and its reasons already made plain that delay was an integral part of the high standard of fairness for CAT claims and that applicants would have succeeded on delay as well; therefore additional separate written reasons were unnecessary and the court need not address every ground where applicants succeeded on other grounds.

Citation
M 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
HCAL106/2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Challenging System for Adjudication of CAT Claims (constitutional and Administrative Law) / Ruling on Applications for Declarations and Costs and Application for Supplemental Judgment (post Judgment Ruling)
Outcome
Application for supplemental judgment refused; applicants had largely succeeded on other grounds; order nisi for no order as to costs on subsequent days of hearing.
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, CAT Claims (convention Against Torture), Delay, Remedies, Costs
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Procedural Fairness CAT Claims (convention Against Torture) Delay Remedies +1 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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
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 Challenging System for Adjudication of CAT Claims (constitutional and Administrative Law) / Ruling on Applications for Declarations and Costs and Application for Supplemental Judgment (post Judgment Ruling)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether absence of guidelines or mandate for timely determination of CAT claims gives rise to procedural unfairness
  2. 2 Whether court should exercise jurisdiction to deliver a supplemental judgment addressing delay
  3. 3 Whether delay in processing CAT claims breached high standard of fairness required by Prabhakar

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a supplemental judgment was refused because the delivered judgment and its reasons already made plain that delay was an integral part of the high standard of fairness for CAT claims and that applicants would have succeeded on delay as well; therefore additional separate written reasons were unnecessary and the court need not address every ground where applicants succeeded on other grounds.

Court Disposition

Application for supplemental judgment refused; applicants had largely succeeded on other grounds; order nisi for no order as to costs on subsequent days of hearing.

Orders

  • Application for supplemental judgment refused
  • Declarations made on agreed terms as recorded