SHAPLA MST v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

SHAPLA MST v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to establish a significant change of circumstances under s.37ZO that, together with prior material, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; the Director's decision was not legally flawed or Wednesbury unreasonable; the applicant was re-litigating prior matters and an RPO was justified to prevent abuse of process.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 1727
Parties
Applicant: Shapla Mst; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 June 2022
Case Number
HCAL1768/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Application for Leave (leave Hearing)
Outcome
Application for leave dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicant
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim Under S.37 ZO, Restricted Proceedings Order, Abuse of Process, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Public Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Under S.37 ZO Restricted Proceedings Order +2 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shapla Mst

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Application for Leave (leave Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a significant change of circumstances under s.37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the Director of Immigration's decision was unlawful or Wednesbury unreasonable
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's subsequent claim amounted to an abuse of process by re-litigating previous facts

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to establish a significant change of circumstances under s.37ZO that, together with prior material, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; the Director's decision was not legally flawed or Wednesbury unreasonable; the applicant was re-litigating prior matters and an RPO was justified to prevent abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Application for leave dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicant

Orders

  • Applicant prohibited from commencing or continuing any proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim in the High Court without leave of the Court of First Instance
  • All leave applications to be made to Deputy Judge K. W. Lung or in his absence the Judge in charge of the Constitutional and Administrative Law List or a designated judge