ETIK ISWANTI v. TORTURE CLAIM APPEAL BOARD

ETIK ISWANTI v. TORTURE CLAIM APPEAL BOARD

The Director lawfully and rationally refused permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement claim because the new material was hearsay/speculation and did not demonstrate a significant change together with prior material to give a realistic prospect of success; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused. The Applicant’s repeated, manifestly groundless proceedings about the same issue amounted to habitual and persistent vexatious litigation justifying a proportionate Section 27 order with specified conditions.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 1589
Parties
Applicant / Defendant (acting in Person): Etik Iswanti; Putative Respondent: Torture Claim Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party / Plaintiff: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 June 2021
Case Number
HCAL411/2021
Procedural Posture
Leave to Apply for Judicial Review of Director's Refusal to Permit Subsequent Non Refoulement Claim; Section 27 HCO Application / Decision
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Section 27 High Court Ordinance order granted against Applicant
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim (s37 Zo), Judicial Review, Section 27 Vexatious Litigant Order, Leave to Institute Proceedings, Costs
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim (s37 Zo) Judicial Review Section 27 Vexatious Litigant Order +2 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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Etik Iswanti

Applicant / Defendant (acting in Person)

Torture Claim Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Leave to Apply for Judicial Review of Director's Refusal to Permit Subsequent Non Refoulement Claim; Section 27 HCO Application / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director lawfully refused permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement claim under s37ZO IO
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant provided sufficient evidence of a significant change of circumstances and a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether a Section 27 order is justified because the Applicant has habitually and persistently instituted vexatious proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The Director lawfully and rationally refused permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement claim because the new material was hearsay/speculation and did not demonstrate a significant change together with prior material to give a realistic prospect of success; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused. The Applicant’s repeated, manifestly groundless proceedings about the same issue amounted to habitual and persistent vexatious litigation justifying a proportionate Section 27 order with specified conditions.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Section 27 High Court Ordinance order granted against Applicant

Orders

  • No legal proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim of the Applicant shall be instituted by her without leave of the Court of First Instance
  • No other legal proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim of the Applicant previously instituted by her shall be continued by her without leave of the Court of First Instance