PHAM VAN HANG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

PHAM VAN HANG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Although the Court had jurisdiction under Order 32 rule 6 to set aside the ex parte dismissal, the applicant failed to show good cause or merits to re-open the application and there was no illegality or irregularity in the ex parte order; consequently the application to re-open was dismissed and the ex parte order was left intact.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 1984
Parties
Applicant: Pham Van Hang; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 August 2024
Case Number
HCAL271/2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Application to Re Open Dismissed in Chambers
Outcome
Application to re-open and to set aside the ex parte order dismissed; original ex parte order remains in force.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Setting Aside Ex Parte Orders, Procedural Irregularity, Jurisdiction
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Human Rights Non Refoulement Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Setting Aside Ex Parte Orders Procedural Irregularity +1 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pham Van Hang

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Application to Re Open Dismissed in Chambers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court has jurisdiction under Order 32 rule 6 to set aside an ex parte order
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has shown good cause and merits to re-open a previously withdrawn/dismissed leave application
  3. 3 Whether the ex parte order was tainted by illegality or irregularity such that it should be set aside

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Court had jurisdiction under Order 32 rule 6 to set aside the ex parte dismissal, the applicant failed to show good cause or merits to re-open the application and there was no illegality or irregularity in the ex parte order; consequently the application to re-open was dismissed and the ex parte order was left intact.

Court Disposition

Application to re-open and to set aside the ex parte order dismissed; original ex parte order remains in force.

Orders

  • Applicant's application dismissed.
  • Ex parte order not set aside.