DAO TRONG TRUONG AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

DAO TRONG TRUONG AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

The court found the applicants relied on the same facts and that the additional material did not demonstrate a significant change of circumstances or give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success under s.37ZO; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed and a restricted proceedings order was justified to prevent abuse of process.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 2984
Parties
1st Applicant (guardian Ad Litem for 3rd Applicant): Dao Trong Truong; 2nd Applicant: Nguyen Thi Luyen; 3rd Applicant: Dao Thu Trang; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 November 2024
Case Number
HCAL1502/2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative Law) / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review and Hearing for Restricted Proceedings Order
Outcome
Applicants' joint application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order (RPO) made against applicants
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim Under S.37 ZO, Restricted Proceedings Order, Abuse of Process, Judicial Review, Hearsay Evidence, State Protection and Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Under S.37 ZO Restricted Proceedings Order Abuse of Process +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dao Trong Truong

1st Applicant (guardian Ad Litem for 3rd Applicant)

Nguyen Thi Luyen

2nd Applicant

Dao Thu Trang

3rd Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative Law) / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review and Hearing for Restricted Proceedings Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director lawfully applied section 37ZO in refusing the subsequent non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the applicants demonstrated a significant change of circumstances since the previous claim
  3. 3 Whether the new materials (including hearsay) give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the applicants relied on the same facts and that the additional material did not demonstrate a significant change of circumstances or give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success under s.37ZO; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed and a restricted proceedings order was justified to prevent abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Applicants' joint application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order (RPO) made against applicants

Orders

  • Applicants prohibited from commencing or continuing any proceedings in the High Court relating to any non-refoulement claim without leave of the Court of First Instance
  • All leave applications to be made to Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung or designated judge by the Chief Judge of the High Court