Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCMP 1472/2021

[2022] HKCFI 494

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 1472 OF 2021

________________________

IN THE MATTER of Section 27 of the High Court Ordinance, Cap. 4

________________________

BETWEEN
	DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION	Plaintiff
and
	RAMANATHAN ARUNAGIRINATHAR	Defendant

________________________

Before:

Hon Coleman J in Chambers (Open to Public)

Date of Application:	10 February 2022
Date of Decision:	16 February 2022

_________________

D E C I S I O N

_________________

A. Introduction

1.In my Decision dated 31 January 2022 [2022] HKCFI 198, I made an order under section 27 of the High Court Ordinance Cap 4 prohibiting the Defendant from instituting or continuing with legal proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim without the leave of the Court of First Instance (“CFI”).

2.The Defendant was absent at the hearing on 31 December 2021, but I was satisfied that all relevant materials had been duly served on the Defendant.

3.In my Decision, I rehearsed the long procedural history of the Defendant’s non-refoulement claim, which I found (for the reasons explained at §21) evidenced that the Defendant has habitually and persistently and without any reasonable ground instituted vexatious legal proceedings. I also found (at §§22-23) it striking that whilst apparent care was given to ensure that the right forms were filled in and filed with the Registrar to enable the Defendant’s case to advance level by level through the appellate system, the Defendant did not identify the right decision against which he was seeking to review/appeal at each level of Court, which were classic examples of judicial proceedings which are manifestly groundless and clearly untenable. Viewing his overall litigation conduct as a whole, it also seemed to me that the Defendant intentionally kept his case alive in the judicial system with the purpose of delaying his deportation from Hong Kong.

4.The terms of the Order made (in the Decision and Corrigendum) were that:

(1)   No legal proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim of the Defendant shall be instituted by him without leave of the CFI;

(2)   All legal proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim of the Defendant previously instituted by him (including but not limited to HCAL 2286/2020) before the making of this Order shall not be continued by him without the leave of the CFI;

(3)   Any application by the Defendant for leave to institute or continue legal proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim of the Defendant under Order 32A, rule 2 of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A, shall be made to the Judge in charge of the Constitutional and Administrative Law List or such other Judge as may be designated by the Chief Judge of the High Court to hear cases in the Constitutional and Administrative Law List;

(4)   No more than 1 application under Order 32A, rule 2 of the Rules of the High Court may be made by the Defendant within any period of 3 months;

(5)   This Order shall cease to have effect at the end of 5 years from the date of this order; and

(6)   A copy of this Order shall be sent to the High Court Registry, the District Court Registry, and the Small Claims Tribunal Registry.

5.I also ordered costs to follow the event, summarily assessed at HK$30,000.

B. New Application

6.By a Form 27A – Notice of application for leave to institute or continue proceedings in court – dated 10 February 2022, the Defendant sought leave to commence or continue his application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Director’s refusal of his Subsequent Claim, made in HCAL 2286/2020 (the proceedings referenced in my section 27 Order).

7.Though it may not be directly relevant to the current consideration, it can be noted that the Form 27A was issued on the same date as another Form 27A in separate proceedings HCAL 1473/2021, by another person against whom a section 27 order had been made, and who is ostensibly unconnected to the Defendant in this case. Nevertheless, the application is strikingly similar – both in the handwriting on the actual Form 27A as well as in the ‘grounds’ typed in the separate document said to identify the basis for leave to commence fresh proceedings – to that other application.

8.I am satisfied that I can deal with this application on the papers.

9.In the document provided with the application identifying the grounds of the application, the Defendant:

(1)   stated that he accepted that he had received documents relating to, but not the notice of hearing for, the hearing on 31 December 2021, and apologised for absence at that hearing;

(2)   in effect again repeated the basis of his non-refoulement claim, and that his claim is genuine;

(3)   stated that the reasons why he had applied many times to the Director, the Board, the CFA, the CA and the CFA, and then began his Subsequent Claim and later application for leave to apply for judicial review was because of fear that his life is in danger, and the proceedings were provoked by threat of removal from Hong Kong;

(4)   stated that he is “seeking protection in this terrific situation all over the world including my country of origin conditions”;

(5)   again challenged the Director’s decision on his Subsequent Claim;

(6)   stated he was unable to pay the ordered costs, because he is an asylum seeker fully supported by International Social Service, without income or work or property; and

(7)   prayed and hoped for the grant of leave to allow him to file a notice of appeal.

10.The only additional supporting document attached was my Decision.

C. Disposition

11.There is nothing in the application and supporting documents which suggests to me that any different order would have been made in my previous Decision, even had the Defendant attended the hearing (for which he admits he had the relevant documents).

12.Indeed, the Defendant continues to focus on his previous underlying claim to non-refoulement protection, which has been addressed on numerous previous occasions through the Board and the Court’s appellate process. As regards the suggestion that the Subsequent Claim was based on new facts, I have already pointed out in my Decision (at §18) that the claim was based broadly on the same set of facts as his original claim, with what was said to be the “significant change of circumstances” which the Director considered did not actually constitute a significant change of circumstances which would give the intended claim any realistic prospect of success. As I also pointed out (at §19), the intended challenge to that decision brought in HCAL 2286/2020 wholly failed to identify any intended grounds of review.

13.I see no reason to lift or suspend the effect of my previous Order made under section 27. The present application is dismissed, with no order as to costs.