Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Vexatious proceedings

Legal area

Court

8 Jan 2026

ALI ZULFIQAR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 191
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL24/2021

The Director lawfully refused permission for a subsequent non-refoulement claim because the applicant failed to provide written evidence of a significant change of circumstances that together with prior material would give the claim a realistic prospect of success under s37ZO; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in that decision, and an RPO was justified to prevent continued abuse of process given repeated attempts to relitigate finally determined claims.
25 Apr 2025

CHINA CITY CONSTRUCTION (INTERNATIONAL) CO LTD (IN CREDITORS’ VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION) AND ANOTHER v. CHINA CITY CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CO (HK) LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1685
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1883/2024

The court awarded indemnity costs because the defendant's initiation of separate Beijing proceedings, after losing on a preliminary issue in Hong Kong and with knowledge of the broader Hong Kong litigation, constituted vexatious and oppressive conduct justifying indemnity costs; accordingly costs of the Originating Summons were to be summarily assessed on an indemnity basis and paid forthwith.
10 Sept 2024

ABELIDO ROWENA RUMBAOA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2370
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1153/2024

The Director correctly applied section 37ZO: the applicant failed to show sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success when combined with prior material; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in that decision; consequently leave to apply for judicial review was refused. Given the applicant’s repeated attempts to re-litigate finally determined non-refoulement matters, a RPO under section 27 and the court’s inherent jurisdiction was justified to prevent abuse of process, with detailed conditions and a five-year duration.
26 Sept 2023

ISLAM ZOHURUL v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2419
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1332/2023

The Director lawfully refused permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement claim because the applicant failed to provide sufficient credible written evidence of a significant change of circumstances that, when combined with prior material, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success under s37ZO; consequently leave to apply for judicial review was refused after rigorous examination and an RPO was justified under s27/s27A High Court Ordinance and the court's inherent jurisdiction to prevent persistent, vexatious re-litigation of matters finally determined.
22 May 2023

MOHAMMAD SHARIF v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1353
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL461/2023

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because none of the proposed grounds were reasonably arguable: the Director lawfully applied s37ZO, found no sufficient evidence of a significant change or realistic prospect of success, and there was no error of law or procedural unfairness; because the applicant repeatedly sought to re-litigate matters finally determined, a RPO was justified to prevent abuse of process.
14 Apr 2023

MOSTAQUE AHAMMED alias AHAMMED RONY v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 979
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1580/2022

The Director lawfully refused permission to make a subsequent claim because the applicant failed to produce sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances or that, combined with prior material, the subsequent claim had a realistic prospect of success; the decision showed no error of law or procedural unfairness. Given the applicant's persistent attempts to re-litigate finally determined non-refoulement claims and absence of viable grounds, an RPO was justified to prevent abuse of process and further vexatious proceedings.
29 Mar 2023

WEWALDENI KANKANAMALAGE SAMAN PUSHPA KUMARA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 507
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL996/2022

The Director lawfully refused permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement claim because the applicant did not provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances or of a realistic prospect of success as required by section 37ZO; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's decision. Given the applicant's persistent attempts to re-litigate a finally determined claim, an RPO was justified under section 27 and the Court's inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process, subject to the specified leave and procedural conditions.
27 Feb 2023

AQEEL MUHAMMAD v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 485
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL789/2022

The Applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success under s37ZO; the Director lawfully and fairly applied the statutory test and relied on prior adverse findings and COI regarding state protection and internal relocation; consequently leave to apply for judicial review was refused and an RPO was justified to prevent abuse of process.
23 Feb 2023

HARJEET SINGH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 481
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL725/2022

The applicant failed to satisfy the statutory threshold in s37ZO because he did not provide sufficient evidence of a significant change of circumstances nor show that any change together with prior material would give a realistic prospect of success; the Director's refusal was lawful and procedurally fair; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused and a RPO under s27 (and the court's inherent jurisdiction) was warranted to prevent further vexatious re-litigation of the finally determined non-refoulement claim, with conditions specifying how leave may be sought.
13 Jan 2023

AKBARUDDIN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 152
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL930/2022

The Director lawfully refused permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement/torture claim because the Applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances that, together with prior material, would give the claim a realistic prospect of success; the decision contained no error of law or procedural unfairness. Given the Applicant's persistent attempts to re-litigate a finally determined claim without viable grounds, a Restricted Proceedings Order was justified to prevent ongoing abuse of process and wasted judicial resources.