Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Subsequent torture claim under s37zo

Legal area

Court

4 Sept 2025

RAI APSHARA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3804
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1540/2025

The Director lawfully refused permission for a subsequent claim because the applicant failed to show a significant change of circumstances or that, together with previous material, the subsequent claim had a realistic prospect of success; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness. Given the applicant's persistent attempts to relitigate finally determined non-refoulement claims, a RPO was justified under section 27 of the High Court Ordinance and the court's inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process.
13 Apr 2023

GANITANO BENNY GANOTICE v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 621
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1395/2022

The Director lawfully refused permission for a subsequent claim because the Applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances and no realistic prospect of success existed given the unchallenged prior findings of available state protection and internal relocation; because the Applicant persisted in re‑litigating finally determined issues without viable grounds, a RPO under s27 Cap 4 and the court's inherent jurisdiction was justified to prevent abuse of process, with specific leave procedures imposed.