Director of Immigration v. Khan Mohammad Shadab

HCMP 1552/2021

[2026] HKCFI 2518

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 1552 OF 2021

________________________

________________________

________________

_________________

D E C I S I O N

_________________

A. Introduction

1.By my Decision dated 31 January 2022, [2022] HKCFI 194, I made an order (“Section 27 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.

2.The Section 27 Order was made on the basis that the Applicant had habitually and persistently and without any reasonable ground instituted vexatious legal proceedings. The various proceedings instituted by the Applicant were manifestly groundless and clearly untenable.

3.Subsequently, by way of a Form 27A filed on 19 April 2022, the Defendant applied for leave to institute or continue with legal proceedings under O. 32A r.2 of the Rules of the High Court Cap 4A.

4.By my Decision dated 25 July 2022, [2022] HKCFI 2257, I dismissed that application. In doing so, I pointed out that there is a high onus cast on such a litigant when he or she applies for leave, and that leave under section 27A(1) should only be granted sparingly and very carefully, and only after the Court has satisfied itself that the claim has a real prospect of success and is not an abuse of process.

5.I was not satisfied that the Defendant had met the high onus placed upon him. Far from it. As I pointed out:

(1)  Based on the one-page handwritten Form 27A, the best the Court could make out is that he would like either to continue with HCAL 1577/2020 or to institute a set of fresh legal proceedings related to his non-refoulement claim.

(2)  It was not possible to tell what precise order he sought.

(3)  He did not set out the grounds on which leave is sought.

(4)  Also, the Form 27A was not filed with a supporting affidavit to provide the Court with any factual basis and evidence upon which it is said leave should be granted.

6.I described applications of that kind as time-wasting abuses of the Court process.

7.Now, by letter dated 9 April 2026, the Applicant again seeks the Court’s consideration to allow him to make an application for leave to apply for judicial review as regards his second ‘subsequent claim’ decision on 4 March 2026.

8.As this time the Applicant has not even filed the relevant Form 27A, it would be open to the Court to ignore his correspondence. However, in this case, I wish to impress again upon the Applicant that he is continuing to act in abuse of process. This is so, notwithstanding that the Applicant has had the benefit of my previous decisions (as referred to above).

9.Once again, the application is woefully incomplete. All that is discernible from his letter is that (1) the Applicant would apparently wish to commence proceedings for judicial review of the refusal of his second ‘subsequent claim’, (2) no grounds upon which leave should be granted have been identified, (3) the relevant court form has not been filed, and (4) there is no supporting affidavit to provide the Court with any factual basis or evidence upon which it is said leave should be granted.

10.The application is dismissed, and the Court will not entertain any renewed application, even if the proper Form 27A for such an application is filed.

11.I make no order as to costs.

12.By way of postscript, I note that the Section 27A Order was made on 31 January 2022, and by its terms had a duration of 5 years. Those 5 years would expire on 31 January 2027, just over eight months from now. Where (1) the Applicant’s original non-refoulement claim (“NRC”) was first dismissed in 2016 and 2017, (2) his various meritless applications were pursued up to the Court of Final Appeal in 2020, (3) his ‘subsequent claim’ was dismissed later in 2020, and (4) where the policy for removal was changed in December 2022, so that failed NRC applicants may be removed after unsuccessfully seeking to challenge the NRC refusal in the Court of First Instance (even if an appeal is made, which shall not be an impediment to removal), it may legitimately be wondered why the Applicant has not yet been removed from Hong Kong, where he has remained illegally since his arrival in 2014.

The defendant, acting in person