KULWINDER KAUR AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

KULWINDER KAUR AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

The Director lawfully refused the applicants permission to make a subsequent claim under s37ZO because they produced no sufficient new evidence of a significant change of circumstances and their repeated claim had no realistic prospect of success in light of prior final determinations and COI; procedural fairness...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 1640
Parties
1st Applicant: Kulwinder Kaur; 2nd Applicant: Simranjeet Singh; 3rd Applicant: Manveer Singh; 4th Applicant: Gunnveer Kaur; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 April 2025
Case Number
HCAL2058/2024
Procedural Posture
Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicants.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim Under S37 ZO, Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo), Procedural Fairness for Minors, Abuse of Process, Vexatious Litigation
Source Language
en
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Under S37 ZO Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo) Procedural Fairness for Minors Abuse of Process +1 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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kulwinder Kaur

1st Applicant

Simranjeet Singh

2nd Applicant

Manveer Singh

3rd Applicant

Gunnveer Kaur

4th Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director lawfully refused permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement claim under s37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the applicants demonstrated a significant change of circumstances sufficient to give a subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether procedural fairness and child‑specific consideration were afforded to the minor applicant (A4)

Ratio Decidendi

The Director lawfully refused the applicants permission to make a subsequent claim under s37ZO because they produced no sufficient new evidence of a significant change of circumstances and their repeated claim had no realistic prospect of success in light of prior final determinations and COI; procedural fairness including child‑specific consideration was satisfied on the material before the Director; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused and a five‑year Restricted Proceedings Order was necessary to prevent continued abuse of process and vexatious re‑litigation.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review is refused and the applicants' application is dismissed.
  • Applicants are prohibited from commencing or continuing any proceedings relating to any non‑refoulement claim in the High Court without the leave of a Judge of the Court of First Instance.