GURUNG INDRA KUMAR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

GURUNG INDRA KUMAR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the subsequent claim did not demonstrate a significant change of circumstances under s37ZO and relied on the same unsubstantiated facts as the previous claim, presenting no realistic prospect of success; the applicant's averments were bare assertions lacking...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 1725
Parties
Applicant: Gurung Indra Kumar; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 July 2023
Case Number
HCAL488/2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Stage (application Refused)
Outcome
Applicant's application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicant.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim Under S37 ZO, Restricted Proceedings Order, Abuse of Process, Procedural Fairness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Screening Process
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Public Law Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Under S37 ZO Restricted Proceedings Order Abuse of Process +3 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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gurung Indra Kumar

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Stage (application Refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant satisfied section 37ZO by showing a significant change of circumstances since the previous claim
  2. 2 Whether the Director's decision involved error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness
  3. 3 Whether a Restricted Proceedings Order (RPO) should be made to prevent abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the subsequent claim did not demonstrate a significant change of circumstances under s37ZO and relied on the same unsubstantiated facts as the previous claim, presenting no realistic prospect of success; the applicant's averments were bare assertions lacking evidence and there was no procedural unfairness; the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to impose a Restricted Proceedings Order to prevent abuse of process given the applicant's history of meritless repeated proceedings.

Court Disposition

Applicant's application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicant.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for Judicial Review refused.
  • Restricted Proceedings Order (RPO) made against the Applicant prohibiting commencement or continuation of any fresh proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim in the High Court and any appeal without leave of the Court of First Instance.