TRI WIDAYATI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

TRI WIDAYATI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to provide any sufficient written evidence demonstrating a significant change of circumstances or that any change together with prior material would give her subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success as required by s37ZO; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director’s decision. A Restricted Proceedings Order was warranted because the applicant had persistently and unreasonably sought to re-litigate matters already finally determined, amounting to an abuse of process, and restriction with specified procedural safeguards was necessary and proportionate.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 764
Parties
Applicant: Tri Widayati; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 March 2025
Case Number
HCAL2506/2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Determined (leave Refused) and Restricted Proceedings Order Made
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicant
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Unified Screening Mechanism, Subsequent Claim Under S37 ZO, Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo), Abuse of Process, High Court Ordinance S27/s27 a, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional and Administrative Law Public Law Judicial Review Non Refoulement Unified Screening Mechanism Subsequent Claim Under S37 ZO Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo) +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tri Widayati

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Determined (leave Refused) and Restricted Proceedings Order Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant satisfied s37ZO threshold for a subsequent torture/non-refoulement claim (significant change and realistic prospect of success)
  2. 2 Whether the Director’s decision contained error of law or procedural unfairness
  3. 3 Whether a Restricted Proceedings Order should be made to prevent vexatious re-litigation and abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to provide any sufficient written evidence demonstrating a significant change of circumstances or that any change together with prior material would give her subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success as required by s37ZO; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director’s decision. A Restricted Proceedings Order was warranted because the applicant had persistently and unreasonably sought to re-litigate matters already finally determined, amounting to an abuse of process, and restriction with specified procedural safeguards was necessary and proportionate.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Applicant's application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed.
  • Applicant is prohibited from commencing or continuing any proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim in the High Court or making any appeal in respect of such claim without the leave of a Judge of the Court of First Instance.