Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Restricted proceedings order

Legal area

Court

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.
13 May 2026

OJASCASTRO WILMA RIVERA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2667
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL166/2026

Because the applicant admitted relying on the same reasons as in her previously dismissed claim, there was no significant change under s37ZO and no realistic prospect of success in the subsequent claim; therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused and an RPO was necessary to prevent abuse of process.
29 Apr 2026

LE THI HONG PHUNG v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2301
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL514/2026

Leave was refused because the applicant relied on the same reasons as in the previous claim, failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances under section 37ZO, produced only bare assertions without supporting evidence, and therefore had no realistic prospect of success; accordingly the court dismissed the leave application and made a Restricted Proceedings Order to prevent abuse of process.
22 Apr 2026

NGUYEN THI MAI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2051
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL348/2026

Applicant admitted reliance on the same facts and reasons as her previously dismissed claim; the immigration officer reasonably found no significant change under s37ZO and there was no realistic prospect of success; leave was refused and an RPO was necessary to prevent abuse of process by re-litigation of identical non-refoulement claims.
22 Apr 2026

BUI TIEN HOAI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1985
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL250/2026

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant relied on the same grounds as his previously determined claim and failed to demonstrate the significant change of circumstances required by s37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance; there was no realistic prospect of success, and an RPO was justified to prevent abuse of the court process.
22 Apr 2026

BUI THANH TAM v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2149
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL403/2026

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant admitted relying on the same reasons as in his previous claim, the additional materials did not demonstrate a significant change in circumstances or a realistic prospect of success under section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance, and therefore there was no arguable ground for judicial review; a Restricted Proceedings Order was made to prevent further abuse of court process, prohibiting fresh non-refoulement proceedings without leave for a period of five years and prescribing procedural safeguards for any leave applications.
22 Apr 2026

LE HUU PHUOC v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2150
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL404/2026

The applicant failed to demonstrate any significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success as required by s37ZO; the Director's refusal was not shown to be legally flawed, procedurally unfair or irrational; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review is refused and a Restricted Proceedings Order is warranted to prevent further abuse of the court's process.
15 Apr 2026

NGUYEN VAN THIEN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1952
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL323/2026

The applicant failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success or a significant change of circumstances required by s.37ZO; the grounds advanced were bare assertions without evidence and did not establish that the Director's decision was unlawful or irrational; consequently leave to apply for judicial review is refused and an RPO is justified to prevent ongoing abuse of court process.
14 Apr 2026

NGUYEN THE TOAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1996
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL437/2026

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of any significant change of circumstances or any material that, together with prior material, would give a subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; the Director’s decision was neither legally flawed nor procedurally unfair; given repeated attempts to re‑litigate conclusively determined claims, a RPO was justified to prevent abuse of process.
19 Mar 2026

NAVARRO MA TRISHA RODRIGUEZ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2026] HKCA 477
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP46/2025

Refuse extension of time where delay is substantial and inadequately explained, the asserted reason (belief in an RPO) is unreasonable, no grounds are pleaded for the intended judicial review and therefore there is no real prospect of success; interpreter and legal assistance arguments did not justify extension or adjournment given available services and prior representation.