DAVID HONEYLETH MANUEL AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

DAVID HONEYLETH MANUEL AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

The court found no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's decision, the additional material was hearsay and did not demonstrate a significant change of circumstances giving a realistic prospect of success under s37ZO, and the applicants were attempting to relitigate settled facts; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused and a five-year Restricted Proceedings Order was imposed to prevent abuse of process.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 631
Parties
1st Applicant: David Honeyleth Manuel; 2nd Applicant (minor): David Gioia Alba; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 March 2023
Case Number
HCAL1029/2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review of Director of Immigration's Refusal of Subsequent Non Refoulement Claim / Decision on Leave Application and Imposition of Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicants.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim (s37 Zo), Restricted Proceedings Order, Abuse of Process, Treatment of Minors in Proceedings, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Judicial Review Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim (s37 Zo) Restricted Proceedings Order +3 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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Honeyleth Manuel

1st Applicant

David Gioia Alba

2nd Applicant (minor)

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review of Director of Immigration's Refusal of Subsequent Non Refoulement Claim / Decision on Leave Application and Imposition of Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants demonstrated a significant change in circumstances under s37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance sufficient to give a subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success
  2. 2 Whether the Director's decision involved error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are abusing process by repeatedly litigating the same facts and whether a Restricted Proceedings Order (RPO) is justified

Ratio Decidendi

The court found no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's decision, the additional material was hearsay and did not demonstrate a significant change of circumstances giving a realistic prospect of success under s37ZO, and the applicants were attempting to relitigate settled facts; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused and a five-year Restricted Proceedings Order was imposed to prevent abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicants.

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 under this order to be made to Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung or designated judge