SERPUJA THAM v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

SERPUJA THAM v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to produce sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances as required by s37ZO, the Director’s decision contained no error of law or procedural unfairness and there was no realistic prospect of success; a Restricted...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 3292
Parties
Applicant: Serpuja Tham; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 November 2021
Case Number
HCAL1313/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Leave Application Refused; Decision and Restricted Proceedings Order Made
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Unified Screening Mechanism, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Restricted Proceedings Order, Vexatious Litigation, Section 37 ZO Immigration Ordinance, Section 27 High Court Ordinance
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Non Refoulement Unified Screening Mechanism Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Restricted Proceedings Order +3 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Serpuja Tham

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Leave Application Refused; Decision and Restricted Proceedings Order Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director erred in refusing permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement claim under s37ZO
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided sufficient evidence of a significant change of circumstances and a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to produce sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances as required by s37ZO, the Director’s decision contained no error of law or procedural unfairness and there was no realistic prospect of success; a Restricted Proceedings Order was justified because the applicant repeatedly and persistently sought to re-litigate a finally determined non-refoulement claim, constituting an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Applicant prohibited from commencing or continuing any proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim in the Court of First Instance without leave of the Court
  • All leave applications must be made to this Court or the designated Judge in the Constitutional and Administrative Law List