MD KALAM v. MR WILLIAM LAM, ESQ

MD KALAM v. MR WILLIAM LAM, ESQ

Leave was refused because the applicant's grounds lacked reasonable arguability and realistic prospects of success: the Director and TCAB adjudicator applied correct legal tests, reached rational conclusions that the dispute was a private matter not amounting to persecution/torture or risk to life, state protection and internal relocation were available, and there was no procedural unfairness warranting judicial review.

Citation
MD KALAM v. MR WILLIAM LAM, ESQ
Parties
Applicant: MD KALAM; Putative Respondent: MR WILLIAM Lam, ESQ; Putative Interested Party: DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 July 2017
Case Number
HCAL54/2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Hearing on Leave Application; Leave Refused 28 July 2017
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Asylum and Refugee Protection, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Bill of Rights Claims (bor2 Article 2; BOR3 Article 3), Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Procedural Fairness, State Protection, Torture Risk (s37 U)
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Asylum and Refugee Protection Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Bill of Rights Claims (bor2 Article 2; BOR3 Article 3) +4 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 6 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MD KALAM

Applicant

MR WILLIAM Lam, ESQ

Putative Respondent

DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Hearing on Leave Application; Leave Refused 28 July 2017

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there were arguable errors of law in the Director's and TCAB adjudicator's decisions
  2. 2 Whether procedural fairness was breached (late bundle, translation, time to prepare)
  3. 3 Whether the adjudicator applied correct standard of proof and Wednesbury review

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant's grounds lacked reasonable arguability and realistic prospects of success: the Director and TCAB adjudicator applied correct legal tests, reached rational conclusions that the dispute was a private matter not amounting to persecution/torture or risk to life, state protection and internal relocation were available, and there was no procedural unfairness warranting judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused