GAGANDEEP KAUR AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

GAGANDEEP KAUR AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

The Director lawfully concluded the applicants failed to satisfy section 37ZO because the subsequent claim rested on essentially the same grounds and lacked sufficient evidence of a significant change that, together with prior material, would give realistic prospects of success; no error of law or procedural unfairness was found; because the applicants persistently sought to relitigate finally determined claims, a RPO under section 27/27A and the court's inherent jurisdiction was justified (RPO imposed for five years with leave requirements).

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 4074
Parties
1st Applicant: Gagandeep Kaur; 2nd Applicant: Gharu Puneet Kaur; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 September 2025
Case Number
HCAL1074/2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused; Disposal and RPO Made
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against applicants.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim (s37 Zo), Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo), Abuse of Process, Leave for Judicial Review, Torture Risk, Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim (s37 Zo) Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo) 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gagandeep Kaur

1st Applicant

Gharu Puneet Kaur

2nd Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused; Disposal and RPO Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants satisfied section 37ZO test for making a subsequent non-refoulement claim (significant change of circumstances and realistic prospect of success)
  2. 2 Whether the Director committed error of law or procedural unfairness in refusing leave to make a subsequent claim
  3. 3 Whether a Restricted Proceedings Order under section 27/27A or the court's inherent jurisdiction is justified to prevent vexatious relitigation

Ratio Decidendi

The Director lawfully concluded the applicants failed to satisfy section 37ZO because the subsequent claim rested on essentially the same grounds and lacked sufficient evidence of a significant change that, together with prior material, would give realistic prospects of success; no error of law or procedural unfairness was found; because the applicants persistently sought to relitigate finally determined claims, a RPO under section 27/27A and the court's inherent jurisdiction was justified (RPO imposed for five years with leave requirements).

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against applicants.

Orders

  • Leave for the 1st and 2nd Applicants to apply for judicial review refused
  • Restricted Proceedings Order (RPO) made prohibiting the applicants from commencing or continuing proceedings related to any non-refoulement claim in the High Court without leave of a CFI Judge