2 Sept 2022
The application for permission was refused because the proposed grounds were not arguable: no clear promise giving rise to legitimate expectation, the appeal tribunal gave adequate reasons and considered relevant factors, and the challenge amounted to an impermissible merits appeal rather than a justiciable error of law.
8 Oct 2021
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Director's decision to reject the subsequent non‑refoulement claim was lawful, rational and not Wednesbury unreasonable: the supporting material was hearsay, there was no significant change of circumstances giving a realistic prospect of success, the statutory stay was lifted for unjustified delay, and an RPO was necessary to prevent abuse of process by re‑litigation.
30 Sept 2021
The Director's decision to refuse the subsequent claim was lawful: the applicant failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances under s37ZO and there was no realistic prospect of success; the Director's factual findings were not Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational; given the applicant's litigation history and intent to re-litigate the same facts to remain in Hong Kong, an RPO was necessary to prevent abuse of process, so leave was refused and an RPO made.