Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Vexatious litigation

Legal area

Court

14 Apr 2026

NGUYEN THE TOAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1996
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL437/2026

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of any significant change of circumstances or any material that, together with prior material, would give a subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; the Director’s decision was neither legally flawed nor procedurally unfair; given repeated attempts to re‑litigate conclusively determined claims, a RPO was justified to prevent abuse of process.
13 Mar 2026

OKEZIE MUNACHISO alias OKUJETO PHILIP v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1518
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL218/2026

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to provide the written evidence required by s37ZO to show a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's decision; a RPO was warranted because the applicant has habitually and persistently sought to re-litigate finally determined non-refoulement claims, constituting an abuse of process.
22 Jan 2026

OKEKE STANLEY CHIGBOGU AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 391
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2084/2025

Leave was refused because the Applicants failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances that, when combined with previously submitted material, would give any subsequent non-refoulement claim a realistic prospect of success; prior final adverse credibility findings and conclusive determinations by the Board and appellate courts were properly taken into account, the Director's decision contained no error of law or procedural unfairness, and an RPO was justified to prevent continued abusive re-litigation.
8 Jan 2026

KHAN SHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 192
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL228/2021

The Director lawfully refused permission for a subsequent claim because the Applicant failed to satisfy s37ZO: he did not show a significant change of circumstances nor that any change with prior material gave a realistic prospect of success; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness. Given the Applicant's persistent attempts to relitigate finally determined claims, a RPO under s27/27A and the court's inherent jurisdiction was justified to prevent abuse of process.
31 Dec 2025

MD MIR SHAFI MIAH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6473
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2298/2020

The Director lawfully applied the statutory s.37ZO test and correctly concluded the Applicant failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances or provide sufficient fresh evidence to give a subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in that decision. Given the Applicant’s repeated attempts to re-litigate claims that have been finally determined (including determinations up to the Court of Final Appeal Appeal Committee), a Restricted Proceedings Order was justified to prevent abuse of process and vexatious litigation.
31 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6472
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2195/2020

The Director lawfully refused the Applicant permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement/torture claim because the Applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence demonstrating a significant change of circumstances and a realistic prospect of success as required by s37ZO; procedural fairness was observed by inviting further materials and advising availability of legal assistance, no statutory right to appeal the refusal exists, and the Applicant's repeated attempts to re-litigate finally determined claims justified a Restricted Proceedings Order under s27 High Court Ordinance and t…
16 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6225
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2345/2020

The Director lawfully refused permission for a subsequent claim because the Applicant failed to present sufficient corroborated evidence demonstrating a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success under s37ZO; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness. Given the Applicant's persistent attempts to re-litigate a finally determined non-refoulement claim, an RPO under s27 and the court's inherent jurisdiction was justified to prevent abuse of process.
12 Dec 2025

鍾玲對長江和記實業有限公司

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6297
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI159/2025

The statement of claim was struck out and the action dismissed because the pleading disclosed no reasonable cause of action, contained only unparticularised and serious allegations without factual foundation, was time-barred on its face, involved non-justiciable national/foreign-state matters, and amounted to frivolous, vexatious and abusive litigation not curable by amendment.
12 Dec 2025

NGUYEN VAN TUYEN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6154
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2291/2025

The Applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success as required by section 37ZO, and the Director's decision to refuse permission for a subsequent claim was neither Wednesbury unreasonable nor procedurally unfair; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused. Further, the Applicant's pattern of persistent attempts to relitigate finally determined non-refoulement claims justified a Restricted Proceedings Order under section 27 of the High Court Ordinance and the Court's inherent jurisdiction to pr…
18 Nov 2025

NGUYEN VAN CUONG v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5567
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2207/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant failed to demonstrate any significant change of circumstances or provide sufficient particularised evidence to satisfy section 37ZO; the Director's decision with rigorous/anxious scrutiny contained no error of law or procedural unfairness and prior adverse findings remained unchallenged; an RPO was justified because the Applicant persistently and without reasonable ground sought to re-litigate finally determined non-refoulement claims, constituting abuse of process.