Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Restrictive proceedings order

Legal area

Court

20 Feb 2026

HOANG VAN NANG v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1022
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL39/2026

The application for leave is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law or constitutional ground on Form 86 as required by Order 53 r3, and prosecutorial decisions to continue criminal proceedings are not susceptible to judicial review on conventional administrative law grounds absent an allegation of unconstitutionality.
19 Aug 2025

CHAN LONG NING, CHRISTINE v. DICKSON CONCEPTS (RETAIL) LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1399
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1660/2024

The court found the plaintiff exhibits the characteristics of a vexatious litigant, has repeatedly re-litigated and abused court processes despite strike out orders and dismissal of appeal, and poses a real risk of continuing abuse; accordingly an RPO was necessary and proportionate to prohibit the plaintiff from commencing any fresh District Court proceedings relating to or touching upon the prior matters without leave, and the defendant was awarded costs to be summarily assessed.
10 Dec 2024

CHENG SHU KI v. 律政司司長 AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3364
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1384/2024

The applications for leave to apply for judicial review were dismissed because there was no reasonably arguable ground: the discovery sought related to proceedings that had been expunged or are the subject of existing civil discovery procedure (HCPI 77/2022), and the asserted 'Patient Interest' ground was a bare, non‑specific claim insufficient to justify judicial review.
25 Sept 2024

莊裕安 v. 終審法院常任大法官李義 AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2596
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1718/2023

All six applications were dismissed because the Applicant failed to identify any impugned administrative decision or reasonably arguable public law grounds; the applications constituted abusive collateral attacks on concluded judicial decisions outside the scope of judicial review, and the court was entitled to refuse leave and endorse the making of a Restrictive Proceedings Order to prevent further abuse.
25 Sept 2024

莊裕安 v. 馬道立 AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2596
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL925/2023

All six applications for leave to apply for judicial review were dismissed because the applicant failed to identify an impugned decision and any reasonably arguable public law grounds, the applications constituted abusive collateral attacks on concluded proceedings and were outside the court's supervisory jurisdiction over judicial decisions; consequently no relief was granted and a Restrictive Proceedings Order was appropriate.
25 Sept 2024

莊裕安 v. 香港中聯辦主任鄭雁雄 AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2596
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1827/2023

All six applications were dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any specific impugned decision or any reasonably arguable public law ground, the claims amounted to improper collateral attacks on concluded court decisions and abusive repetition of meritless applications, and judicial review cannot be used to challenge judicial decisions of higher courts; given the abuse, endorsement of a Restrictive Proceedings Order was appropriate.
25 Sept 2024

莊裕安 v. 張舉能 AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2596
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL679/2023

All six applications were dismissed because the applicant failed to identify an impugned decision and any reasonably arguable public law ground, the challenges amounted to collateral attacks on concluded appeals and an abuse of process, and there was no jurisdiction to grant the relief sought; a Restrictive Proceedings Order to curb further abusive litigation is appropriate.
25 Sept 2024

莊裕安 v. 梁啟彥 AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2596
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL696/2023

Each application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify an impugned decision and any reasonably arguable public law ground, many claims were collateral attacks on concluded judicial proceedings not amenable to judicial review, targets included judges immune from suit or bodies outside JR jurisdiction, and the pattern of repetitive, voluminous and unfounded applications constituted an abuse of process; an RPO restricting further proceedings on related matters was appropriate and stands.
25 Sept 2024

莊裕安 v. 馬道立 AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2596
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL924/2023

All six applications were dismissed because the applicant failed to identify an impugned decision and any reasonably arguable public law ground, the challenges constituted impermissible collateral attacks on concluded judgments and an abuse of process, and the High Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the relief sought against final judicial decisions or private actors not exercising public functions; the RPO previously made was necessary and appropriate and is endorsed.
2 Nov 2023

莊裕安 v. 律政司司長林定國

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2840
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1243/2023

The application was dismissed for want of merit because it was brought with inordinate delay, the applicant lacked sufficient interest, no exceptional grounds existed to review the prosecutorial decision, and the proceedings constituted an abuse of process; accordingly a Restricted Proceedings Order was made prohibiting Chong from instituting further related proceedings without leave.