GURJIT SINGH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

GURJIT SINGH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Director and the Board correctly found the subsequent claim relied on the same or similar facts already finally determined, there was no significant change giving a realistic prospect of success, and the Director's decision involved no error of law or procedural unfairness; an RPO was made to prevent abuse of process.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 2796
Parties
Applicant: Gurjit Singh; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 September 2022
Case Number
HCAL685/2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application and Imposition of Restricted Proceedings Order
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review refused; applicant's application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO, Abuse of Process, Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo), Internal Relocation and State Protection
Source Language
EN
Immigration Constitutional and Administrative Law Public Law Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO Abuse of Process Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo) Internal Relocation and State Protection

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

Parties

Gurjit Singh

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application and Imposition of Restricted Proceedings Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director lawfully refused the subsequent non-refoulement claim under section 37ZO
  2. 2 Whether there was a significant change of circumstances giving a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is abusing the court process and an RPO should be made

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Director and the Board correctly found the subsequent claim relied on the same or similar facts already finally determined, there was no significant change giving a realistic prospect of success, and the Director's decision involved no error of law or procedural unfairness; an RPO was made to prevent abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review refused; applicant's application dismissed

Orders

  • Applicant prohibited from commencing or continuing any proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim in the High Court or any appeal without leave of the Court of First Instance
  • Leave applications to be made to Deputy High Court Judge K. W. Lung or designated judge