Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Abuse of process

Legal area

Court

21 May 2026

PHAM THI VAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2862
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1569/2021

The leave application was premature and an abuse of process when lodged because the Board's appeal/petition had not been decided; the court nonetheless amended the Form 86 to challenge the Board's Decision dated 12 August 2022 but found no arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in that decision and therefore dismissed the application for leave.
20 May 2026

YAN MEI and YAN DONG, the Joint and Several Administrators of the Estate of FONG LAP CHUNG GEORGE, Deceased AND ANOTHER v. FONG LAP SHAN

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2963
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1562/2022

The defendant's summons was dismissed as an abuse of process and misconceived; the defendant must pay the plaintiffs' costs of the application, summarily assessed at HK$70,000, apportioned HK$35,000 to P1 and HK$35,000 to P2; the HK$35,000 apportioned to P1 is to be set off against P1's liability under the Unless Order and the costs order nisi is made absolute.
20 May 2026

YAN MEI and YAN DONG, the Joint and Several Administrators of the Estate of FONG LAP CHUNG GEORGE, Deceased AND ANOTHER v. FONG LAP SHAN

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2963
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA104/2023

The defendant's summons was an abuse of process and misconceived; the costs order nisi was made absolute; a summary assessment is appropriate and the defendant must pay assessed costs of HK$70,000, apportioned HK$35,000 to each of P1 and P2, with the P1 portion to be set off against amounts payable by P1 under the Unless Order and the P2 portion payable forthwith by the defendant.
19 May 2026

MALIWANAG NESTOR MARCIAL v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2793
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL208/2021

The Director correctly applied section 37ZO by finding the applicant failed to produce sufficient evidence of a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success; accordingly there was no arguable ground for judicial review and leave is refused; because the applicant repeatedly sought to re-litigate finally determined non-refoulement claims and thereby abused court process, a five-year Restricted Proceedings Order was justified under section 27 and the court's inherent jurisdiction.
19 May 2026

VIKRAMJEET v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2785
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL84/2023

Dismissal of the leave application and adjournment application was required because there was no Board decision of 22 October 2021 to review (the applicant had appealed then unequivocally withdrawn the appeal and the Board allowed the withdrawal), the TCAB appeal procedure was the suitable alternative remedy which the applicant had used and abandoned, and the leave application was filed after substantial unexplained delay and constituted an abuse of process; the adjournment application lacked identified relevant evidence and was therefore refused.
19 May 2026

MANE HAMIROU v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2796
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2729/2025

The Director lawfully refused the Applicant permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement claim because the material advanced did not establish a significant change of circumstances nor, when combined with prior material, a realistic prospect of success in light of unchallenged adverse credibility findings; accordingly there was no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness and leave was refused. Given the Applicant's repeated attempts to relitigate conclusively determined claims, a Restricted Proceedings Order under s27 and the court's inherent jurisdiction was justified to prevent abu…
18 May 2026

王寬裕對勞福局及另二人 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2643
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL258/2026

Permission was refused because the applicant failed to particularise the decision and grounds for judicial review, provided incoherent and incomplete supporting materials, sought relief that was not properly within judicial review, and consequently showed no real prospect of success such that the application amounted to an abuse of process.
18 May 2026

王寬裕對房屋署署長及另二人 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2855
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL490/2026

The leave application was refused because the applicant failed to identify with sufficient clarity the decision and legal grounds for review, the materials were incoherent and incapable of supporting a reasonably arguable case, the relief sought fell outside the proper scope of judicial review, and the application therefore had no real prospect and amounted to an abuse of process.
18 May 2026

王寬裕對政務長（司法機構）及另二人 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2644
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL280/2026

Permission was refused because the applicant failed to identify a reviewable decision, relied on incoherent and speculative allegations without objective evidence, sought remedies outside the scope of judicial review, and therefore had no real prospect of success such that the application constituted an abuse of process.
18 May 2026

王寬裕對司法機構政務長及另二人 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2853
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL469/2026

Permission was refused because the application did not identify any decision to be judicially reviewed, the materials were chaotic and failed to disclose arguable public law grounds, and the proposed claim had no real prospect of success and thus constituted an abuse of the judicial review procedure.