WAHYUNI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

WAHYUNI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

The RPO was maintained and the quash application dismissed because the applicant produced no new or reasonably arguable grounds for a subsequent non-refoulement claim, and her persistent attempts to relitigate previously finally determined issues constituted an abuse of process warranting the continued restriction.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 2915
Parties
Applicant: WAHYUNI; Putative Respondent: DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 September 2021
Case Number
HCAL442/2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative Law) / Application to Quash Restrictive Proceedings Order After Dismissal of Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Outcome
Application dismissed; Restrictive Proceedings Order maintained.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Proceedings Order, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Abuse of Process, Subsequent Non Refoulement Claim, Finality of Litigation
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Judicial Review Human Rights Non Refoulement Restrictive Proceedings Order Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Abuse of Process +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WAHYUNI

Applicant

DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative Law) / Application to Quash Restrictive Proceedings Order After Dismissal of Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Restrictive Proceedings Order (RPO) should be quashed
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has new or reasonably arguable grounds for a subsequent non-refoulement claim
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's conduct amounts to an abuse of process justifying an RPO

Ratio Decidendi

The RPO was maintained and the quash application dismissed because the applicant produced no new or reasonably arguable grounds for a subsequent non-refoulement claim, and her persistent attempts to relitigate previously finally determined issues constituted an abuse of process warranting the continued restriction.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; Restrictive Proceedings Order maintained.

Orders

  • Applicant's application to quash the Restrictive Proceedings Order dismissed.
  • Restrictive Proceedings Order remains in force: applicant prohibited from commencing or continuing any legal proceedings relating to a non-refoulement claim in the High Court without leave of the Court of First Instance.