15 May 2026
The application was dismissed because it was procedurally deficient and substantively failed the high onus for leave under s27A: no Form 27A, no grounds identified, no supporting affidavit, and the conduct constituted an abuse of process; therefore leave was refused and no renewed applications will be entertained.
14 Jan 2026
The Director correctly applied s37ZO and reasonably concluded the applicant did not demonstrate a significant change of circumstances that, together with previous material, would give a subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable, the applicant failed to show a reasonably arguable claim with realistic prospects and leave is refused; given repeated meritless re‑litigation the court properly made a proportionate Restricted Proceedings Order to prevent abuse of process.
18 Dec 2025
The proposed joinder was refused and the action dismissed because the allegations against the proposed defendants did not relate to the contravention permitting a s66 PDPO claim, the claim was identical to previously struck out proceedings and therefore fell within the scope of the later RPO and amounted to an abuse of process; accordingly leave was refused and the proceeding dismissed.
4 Sept 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.
19 Aug 2025
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.
29 Jul 2025
The Director lawfully refused permission to make a subsequent claim because, although a different alleged perpetrator was asserted, the new allegation was of a similar private nature and, when viewed with prior findings of available state protection and internal relocation, did not give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; no error of law or procedural unfairness was identified and therefore leave for judicial review was refused. An RPO was justified because the Applicant had repeatedly sought to re-litigate finally determined non-refoulement claims, constituting abuse of pro…
23 Jan 2024
The Director lawfully applied s37ZO and properly found the Applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change or a realistic prospect of success; there was no procedural unfairness and, to prevent continued vexatious relitigation of a finally determined claim, a RPO under s27 High Court Ordinance (and the Court's inherent jurisdiction) was justified.
27 Nov 2023
The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because it was brought well outside the 28-day period without good and sufficient reason for extension, it did not raise any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) HKCFAO, the proposed appeal lacked merit and amounted to an abuse of process; service of the respondent's submissions was proper; extension of time was refused and costs were awarded to the Secretary for Justice on an indemnity basis in the sum of HKD 16,853.
19 Aug 2022
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's complaints concerned private law matters and amounted to collateral attacks on prior judicial decisions, making the application plainly without merit and an abuse of process; accordingly the leave application was dismissed.
17 May 2022
The judge correctly refused leave because the intended judicial review lacked a realistic prospect of success given the subsequent claim was essentially the same as prior finally determined claims and raised no viable legal or procedural errors; the Director was entitled to treat no further interview as necessary; the applicant's repeated relitigation amounted to abuse of process and the five-year RPO was proportionate and therefore upheld.