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

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

The Director's decision was neither Wednesbury unreasonable nor procedurally unfair; the applicant relied on the same facts already rejected and failed to show a significant change of circumstances under section 37ZO that would give a realistic prospect of success, so leave is refused and an RPO is warranted to prevent abuse of process.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 1758
Parties
Applicant: Ta Duy Tham; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 July 2023
Case Number
HCAL515/2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Refused and Restricted Proceedings Order Made
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicant
Legal Topics
Restricted Proceedings Order, Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO, Abuse of Process, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Country of Origin Information (coi), State Acquiescence
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Civil Procedure Restricted Proceedings Order Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO +5 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ta Duy Tham

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Refused and Restricted Proceedings Order Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there has been a significant change of circumstances under section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance to permit a subsequent non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the Director of Immigration's decision was Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally unfair
  3. 3 Whether an RPO is justified to prevent abuse of the court's processes by repeated litigation on the same facts

Ratio Decidendi

The Director's decision was neither Wednesbury unreasonable nor procedurally unfair; the applicant relied on the same facts already rejected and failed to show a significant change of circumstances under section 37ZO that would give a realistic prospect of success, so leave is refused and an RPO is warranted to prevent abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicant

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Restricted Proceedings Order prohibiting commencement or continuation of any non-refoulement proceedings without leave of the Court of First Instance