HALDER LILY v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

HALDER LILY v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances under section 37ZO that, together with prior material, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; there was no procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality in...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 3145
Parties
Applicant: Halder Lily; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 October 2021
Case Number
HCAL1364/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused; Notification of Decision
Outcome
Application for leave dismissed; leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against applicant
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO, Restricted Proceedings Order, Abuse of Process, Judicial Review Standards, Torture, Religious Persecution, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Public Law Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO Restricted Proceedings Order +5 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

Halder Lily

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused; Notification of Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there has been a significant change of circumstances under section 37ZO to justify a subsequent non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the Director's decision was procedurally unfair or Wednesbury irrational
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is abusing process by re-litigating previously determined facts and whether a Restricted Proceedings Order (RPO) is justified

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances under section 37ZO that, together with prior material, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; there was no procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality in the Director's or Board's findings; an RPO was necessary to prevent abuse of process by re-litigation of previously decided matters.

Court Disposition

Application for leave dismissed; leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against applicant

Orders

  • (1) Applicant is prohibited from commencing any fresh proceedings or continuing existing legal proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim in the Court of First Instance without leave of that court.
  • (2) All applications for leave under paragraph (1) shall be made to Deputy Judge K. W. Lung or in his absence the Judge in charge of the Constitutional and Administrative Law List or such other designated Judge.