Yau Wai Ching v. Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Secretary for Justice
Read the full judgment text of FAMV 7/2017 on BabelCite. This FAMV judgment was delivered on 1 September 2017 before Ma CJ, Ribeiro PJ, Fok PJ.
Constitutional law – Article 104 of the Basic Law – oath-taking by Legislative Council members – non-intervention principle – construction of section 21 of the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance (Cap.11) – whether disqualification is automatic – interpretation of Article 104 of the Basic Law by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress – effect of NPCSC Interpretation – leave to appeal from CACV 224, 225, 226 & 227 of 2016. Sixtus Leung Chung Hang and Yau Wai Ching were elected to the Legislative Council in September 2016. When taking the Legislative Council oath on 12 October 2016, they made material alterations to the prescribed wording, used the term 'Hong Kong nation', mispronounced 'China' as '支那' (a derogatory term), Yau further mispronounced 'People's Republic of China' as 'the People's Refucking of Sheen-na', displayed a banner reading 'HONG KONG IS NOT CHINA', and otherwise conducted themselves in a manner inconsistent with a sincere and solemn oath-taking. The President of the Legislative Council determined that the oaths were invalid but allowed them to be re-taken at the next meeting. The Chief Executive and Secretary for Justice then brought proceedings seeking declaratory and injunctive relief (HCMP 2819/2016 and HCAL 185/2016). The Court of First Instance (Au J) held that the applicants had declined and neglected to take the oath and granted relief in favour of the Government. The Court of Appeal (Cheung CJHC, Lam VP and Poon JA) unanimously dismissed their appeals. The applicants sought leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, raising questions concerning (1) the applicability of the non-intervention principle, (2) the proper construction of section 21 of the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance (Cap.11) (whether disqualification for declining or neglecting to take the oath is automatic), (3) the ambit and effect of the NPCSC Interpretation of Article 104 of the Basic Law, and (4) the construction of certain provisions of the Legislative Council Ordinance (Cap.542). The Appeal Committee held that, although some questions touched upon issues of general and public importance, there was no reasonably arguable basis for disturbing the judgments below. The non-intervention principle did not preclude judicial inquiry into compliance with the constitutional requirements of BL104, as it is the duty of the courts of the HKSAR, as a matter of obligation and not discretion, to enforce and interpret the Basic Law (Ng Ka Ling v Director of Immigration (1999) 2 HKCFAR 4). BL104 imposes a constitutional duty on members of Legco to take the oath, and section 21 of the Ordinance, mandated by BL104, operates such that a member who has been found to have declined or neglected to take the oath is automatically disqualified and cannot be permitted to re-take it. The requirement of solemnity is necessarily implied, reinforced by the wording of the oath, section 5 of the Ordinance, section 7 (affirmation in lieu), and paragraphs 2(2) and 2(3) of the NPCSC Interpretation. The NPCSC's power to interpret the Basic Law under Article 158(1) is general and unqualified, an interpretation declares the law as it has always been since 1 July 1997, and is binding on the courts of the HKSAR (Ng Ka Ling; Lau Kong Yung v Director of Immigration; Director of Immigration v Chong Fung Yuen). The applications for leave to appeal were dismissed with costs, including a certificate for two counsel.
Legal issues: Whether the proposed grounds of appeal meet the leave threshold under s.22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance
Outcome: Applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal dismissed.
Cites 7 cases
|
FAMV Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 of 2017 FAMV No. 7 of 2017 IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 7 OF 2017 (CIVIL) (ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM CACV NO. 225 OF 2016) ____________________ BETWEEN
____________________ FAMV No. 8 of 2017 IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 8 OF 2017 (CIVIL) (ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM CACV NO. 226 OF 2016) ____________________ BETWEEN
____________________ FAMV No. 9 of 2017 IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 9 OF 2017 (CIVIL) (ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM CACV NO. 224 OF 2016) ____________________ BETWEEN
____________________ FAMV No. 10 of 2017 IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 10 OF 2017 (CIVIL) (ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM CACV NO. 227 OF 2016) ____________________ BETWEEN
____________________
__________________________________ REASONS FOR DETERMINATION __________________________________ The Appeal Committee: Introduction 1.These applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal arise out of proceedings concerning the taking of the oath of a Legislative Councillor by the two applicants, Sixtus Leung Chung Hang and Yau Wai Ching (“Leung” and “Yau” respectively), following the general election in September 2016 and the consequences of their purporting to do so. As will be seen, it was determined by the President of the Legislative Council (“Legco”) that their actions did not constitute a valid taking of the requisite oath and he decided that they should be given a further opportunity to do so. Before they were able to do so, however, these proceedings were commenced by the then Chief Executive and the Secretary for Justice, the material question being whether in the circumstances Leung and Yau were entitled to re-take their oaths. The Court of First Instance concluded that they were not and made declarations as to the invalidity of their oaths and of their disqualification from assuming office as members of Legco and acting as such. That decision was affirmed on appeal and has led to the applications now before us. 2.These proceedings have received widespread publicity and the circumstances leading to them have provoked strong expressions of opinion and comment amongst many members of the community. Be that as it may (and the Court’s role is not to enter into matters of political debate), the sole legal issue for the Appeal Committee on these applications has been whether the criteria for the grant of leave to appeal have been satisfied. As provided by the Court’s Ordinance, such leave will only be granted if the Court is of the opinion that the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court for decision.[1] It is not enough that an important question is raised, though, since it must also be reasonably arguable that the answer to that question will affect the judgment under appeal.[2] 3.It was submitted on behalf of the applicants that the proposed appeal does indeed involve various questions which, by reason of their great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court. However, having considered the written and oral submissions advanced on behalf of the applicants, we had no doubt that the threshold for leave to appeal is not met and that, accordingly, the applications must be dismissed. In summary, although the questions touch upon issues of law of general and public importance, there is no reasonably arguable basis for disturbing the judgments under appeal. At the conclusion of the hearing, we therefore dismissed the applications for leave to appeal indicating that we would provide our reasons for doing so in writing in due course, which we now do. Background leading to the proceedings below 4.Article 104 of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (“BL104”) provides:
5.The Oaths and Declarations Ordinance (Cap.11) (“the Ordinance”) stipulates, in section 16, that, among other oaths, that referred to in the Ordinance as the Legislative Council Oath (“the Legco oath”) shall be in the form set out in Schedule 2 and the oath in question is at Part IV of Schedule 2 in the following terms:
6.Materially, section 19 of the Ordinance provides that:
7.Furthermore, section 21 of the Ordinance provides for the consequence of non-compliance in the following terms:
8.Leung and Yau were respectively elected to be members of Legco in the general election held in September 2016. They were duly asked to take the Legco oath before the Clerk to Legco at its meeting on 12 October 2016. Instead of taking the Legco oath in the form stipulated in Schedule 2 to the Ordinance, each of them made a number of material alterations to it and accompanied their words by various actions, described by Au J in paragraph [5] of his judgment in the Court of First Instance as follows:
9.In the light of this, on 18 October 2016, the President decided that the oath taken by each of Leung and Yau on 12 October 2016 was invalid. However, his decision went on to permit each to re-take their oaths at the next meeting of Legco on 19 October 2016 if they requested to do so in writing. Leung and Yau both requested to do so. However, events were then overtaken by these legal proceedings which were commenced on 18 October 2016. 10.There were two sets of proceedings below which were heard together. In HCMP 2819 of 2016, the Chief Executive and Secretary for Justice sought declaratory and injunctive relief against Leung and Yau in relation to their respectively entering on the office of Legco member; and, in HCAL 185 of 2016, the Chief Executive and Secretary for Justice sought relief to quash the President’s decision of 18 October 2016 and to declare that Leung and Yau’s oaths could not be re-administered. The Interpretation of BL104 by the Standing Committee 11.On 7 November 2016, after the hearing of the proceedings in the Court of First Instance but before judgment was given, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (“NPCSC”) of the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) exercised its power under Article 158(1) of the Basic Law[3] to interpret BL104 (the “Interpretation”). The Interpretation states as follows:
The decisions below 12.In the Court of First Instance, Leung and Yau opposed the proceedings against them on a number of grounds, not all of which are sought to be pursued in this Court. First, they invoked the non-intervention principle to argue that the court should not intervene in respect of the President of Legco’s decision that they be allowed to re-take their oaths. Second, they argued that their conduct in the oath-taking process is immune from suit.[4] Third, they contended that section 21 of the Ordinance does not operate automatically as a matter of law to disqualify them as members of Legco. Fourth, they contested the Chief Executive’s locus to bring these proceedings. In his judgment dated 15 November 2016, Au J rejected each of Leung and Yau’s grounds of opposition and held in favour of the Chief Executive and Secretary for Justice, granting the declaratory and injunctive relief sought. 13.The Judge reached his conclusions independently of the Interpretation[5] but considered Leung and Yau’s submissions on it, which were: that under paragraph 2(4) of the Interpretation the person administering the oath is the final arbiter to determine the validity of an oath and its compliance with BL104 and the Ordinance, hence supporting reliance on the non-intervention principle; that, properly construed as a matter of common law, the Interpretation went further than the meaning of BL104 and so was not in compliance with BL158 and not binding on the court; and that the Interpretation was effectively an amendment of BL104 and so had no retrospective effect. He rejected their reliance on the Interpretation in support of the non-intervention principle and held that it was not necessary for him to determine the other contentions in view of his conclusions on the issues in favour of the Chief Executive and Secretary for Justice without reference to the Interpretation.[6] 14.Leung and Yau appealed to the Court of Appeal essentially repeating the arguments advanced at first instance. The Court of Appeal (Cheung CJHC, Lam VP and Poon JA) unanimously rejected those arguments and, by their judgment dated 30 November 2016,[7] dismissed their appeals. By a further judgment dated 16 January 2017, the Court of Appeal dismissed Leung and Yau’s applications for leave to appeal to this Court. 15.It is important to emphasise one particular matter that arises from the decisions below, which is the finding of fact by Au J that, when they purported to take the Legco oath on 12 October 2016, Leung and Yau each:
The Court of Appeal affirmed this finding, holding that:
The present applications 16.By notices of applications dated 13 February 2017, Leung (FAMV 9 and 10 of 2017) and Yau (FAMV 7 and 8 of 2017) have renewed their applications for leave to appeal to the Appeal Committee, contending that their proposed appeals raise questions of law which, by reason of their great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court for decision. Although not in identical terms, the questions of law sought to be raised by each of the applicants’ respective notices of application engage: (1) the issue of the applicability of the non-intervention principle, (2) the proper construction of section 21 of the Ordinance, and (3) the ambit and effect of the Interpretation. In addition, Yau raises a question concerning the proper construction of certain provisions of the Legislative Council Ordinance (Cap.542) which relates to the question of whether disqualification for declining or neglecting to take the Lego oath is automatic. The non-intervention principle 17.In Leung Kwok Hung v President of the Legislative Council (No.1),[10] the Court of Final Appeal acknowledged,[11] as a common law doctrine, the doctrine of the separation of powers and, within it, the established relationship between the legislature and the courts, including the principle that the courts will recognise the exclusive authority of the legislature in managing its own internal processes in the conduct of its business, in particular its legislative processes. The Court also acknowledged, as a corollary to this, the proposition that the courts will not intervene to rule on the regularity or irregularity of the internal processes of the legislature but will leave it to determine exclusively for itself matters of this kind: this is the non-intervention principle. 18.In these applications, Leung and Yau rely on the non-intervention principle to challenge the proceedings against them and to contend that, the President of Legco having decided that they should be allowed to re-take their oaths, it was not for the courts to interfere with that decision. They seek leave to appeal in respect of the following questions relating to this principle:
19.It is important to recognise the proper scope of the principle of non-intervention. In Leung Kwok Hung v President of the Legislative Council (No.1), the context was the appropriateness of court intervention in the legislative process where the President of Legco had made a decision in relation to the length of debate on a bill which had been the subject of attempts to filibuster it. Even in that context, the Court stated that:
20.Hence, the Court concluded, in answer to the issue of whether Article 73(1) of the Basic Law mandated the exercise of jurisdiction by the Hong Kong courts to ensure compliance with the Rules of Procedure of Legco (“the Rules of Procedure”) in its legislative processes, that:
21.In the present context, the principle of non-intervention cannot apply in respect of the court’s duty to rule on the question of compliance with the constitutional requirements of BL104. In the exercise of their judicial power conferred by the Basic Law, it is the duty of the courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, as a matter of obligation and not discretion, to enforce and interpret that law: Ng Ka Ling & Others v Director of Immigration (1999) 2 HKCFAR 4 at 25H-I. BL104 gives rise to a constitutional duty on members of Legco to take an oath to swear to uphold the Basic Law and to swear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. This is clear from the terms of BL104 itself but is reinforced by paragraph 2 of the Interpretation. Although the precise terms of the oath to be taken are not expressly set out in BL104, the provision imposes a duty to swear “in accordance with law”. That law is the Ordinance, sections 16 and 19 and Schedule 2 of which stipulate the form of the Legco oath that members are required to take and also provides, by section 21, that certain consequences will attach to a person who declines or neglects to take that oath when duly requested to do so. 22.In the circumstances, by reason of the constitutional requirement in BL104, the courts are plainly duty bound to consider the question of whether Leung and Yau did each duly take the Legco oath on 12 October 2016 and, if not, with what consequences, and the non-intervention principle does not preclude such judicial inquiry. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that it has not been contended by either Leung or Yau that any of sections 16, 19 or 21 of the Ordinance are generally unconstitutional. Furthermore, the Interpretation provides explicitly that the taking of the Legco oath is a legal prerequisite to taking up office and that a person who declines to take the oath is disqualified from assuming office. 23.It was contended, on behalf of Leung, that because there are no specific constitutional requirements in BL104 relating to the manner in which the Legco oath is taken, the general principle of non-intervention applies and it is for the President of Legco, and not the courts, whether to allow him a second opportunity validly to take that oath. Similarly, on behalf of Yau, it was contended that the procedural arrangements for the taking of the Legco oath are part of the internal processes of Legco and governed by the Rules of Procedure, so that it is a matter for the President of Legco to decide if and when she should re-take her oath. Alternatively, Yau contended that, if the non-intervention principle does not apply, the procedural decision of the President of Legco (to permit her to re-take her Legco oath) should be reviewable by the courts only where necessary for the protection of the constitutional rights of a Hong Kong permanent resident who voted for a duly elected legislator. 24.These submissions are untenable and the same submissions in substance were rightly rejected by the courts below. As explained above, BL104 imposes a constitutional requirement on a member of Legco validly to take the Legco oath. The question of whether that has been done, when properly raised, is a matter into which the courts are duty bound to inquire. None of the questions sought to be raised by Leung or Yau in respect of the non-intervention principle are reasonably arguable or give rise to a reasonably arguable ground of appeal. The proper construction of section 21 of the Ordinance and whether disqualification is automatic 25.Section 21 of the Ordinance is a legislative provision mandated by the constitutional requirement in BL104 and provides for the consequence where a member of Legco declines or neglects to take the Legco oath. It has not been contended that it does not meet the constitutional requirement of legal certainty or that it does not constitute a provision “in accordance with law” within BL104. 26.Instead, Leung and Yau argue that section 21 of the Ordinance should not be construed as requiring a member of Legco who declines or neglects to take the Legco oath to vacate his office automatically by operation of law and seek to raise the following questions relating to the interpretation of section 21 of the Ordinance:
27.In addition, Yau raises a question (Question (6)) concerning the construction of section 73 of the Legislative Council Ordinance (Cap.542), which is relied upon as an allied argument to those advanced on her behalf on the construction of section 21 of the Ordinance, in these terms:
28.It is important to recognise that any question as to the interpretation of section 21 of the Ordinance arises, in the present cases, in the context of Leung and Yau having been found to have manifestly refused and wilfully omitted (and so, in the language of section 21, to have declined and neglected) to take the Legco oath when requested to do so. That finding of fact, as already noted above, cannot reasonably be contested. In the circumstances, the arguments advanced on behalf of Leung and Yau that section 21 of the Ordinance is not intended to disqualify a member of Legco who inadvertently omits some words of the Legco oath or who mistakenly reads the wrong oath are simply not engaged on the present facts. In such a situation, the oath taker would not have declined or neglected to take the requisite oath and the President of Legco would be acting lawfully in requesting the member to re-take the Legco oath at another sitting of Legco. On the other hand, where a member has been incontrovertibly found by a court to have declined or neglected to take the Legco oath, as in the present case, there is no discretion or judgment to be exercised by the President of Legco. 29.Such a conclusion on the effect of section 21 of the Ordinance is consistent with BL104 as construed in light of the Interpretation (in particular paragraph 2(3) thereof) and also, independently, on the proper construction of section 21 itself in the light of its context and purpose. This was the clear conclusion of both Au J[14] and the Court of Appeal[15] and we do not consider it to be reasonably arguable that their construction of section 21 of the Ordinance is wrong. 30.Yau’s argument that section 21 of the Ordinance does not impose a requirement of solemnity is without substance and not reasonably arguable. Construed in the light of its context and purpose, which include the provisions of BL104, it is plainly to be implied that the requirement to take the Legco oath is a requirement to take that oath in an objectively solemn manner. This is amply supported by: the wording of the oath itself (see above); the provisions concerning the normal manner of administration of oaths in general (section 5 of the Ordinance); and, where a person objects to being sworn, the need for an affirmation in lieu of an oath which by its express terms is to be taken “solemnly, sincerely, and truly” (section 7 of the Ordinance). In any event, the requirement for solemnity in the taking of the Legco oath is now also expressly stipulated in paragraphs 2(2) and 2(3) of the Interpretation which (as discussed below) is binding on the courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. 31.Leung’s argument that the words “who declines or neglects to take an oath” should be interpreted so that a person who fails to take a valid oath, but is willing to do so with minimal delay, neither “declines or neglects” for the purposes of section 21 of the Ordinance since any broader interpretation would conflict with the principle of proportionality must similarly be rejected as not reasonably arguable since we can see no basis for such a construction and no unconstitutionality requiring the provision to be read down. On the facts of the present case, Leung and Yau manifestly refused and wilfully omitted, and therefore declined and neglected, to take the Legco oath. There is no reasonable basis for the argument that disqualification in these circumstances amounts to a disproportionate interference with any constitutional rights. 32.Yau’s argument in reliance on section 73 of the Legislative Council Ordinance (Cap.542) does not assist her. We do not accept that it is reasonably arguable that the scope and effect of section 21 of the Ordinance is excluded by the existence of other circumstances and procedures by which a member of Legco can be disqualified from office. The Interpretation 33.In respect of the Interpretation, Leung and Yau seek to raise the following questions by way of appeal:
34.In approaching questions raised in respect of the Interpretation, it must be borne in mind that the Court has previously considered the scope of BL158(1), the power of the NPCSC to interpret provisions of the Basic Law and the effect of such interpretations on a number of occasions, among them in the Court’s decisions in Ng Ka Ling & Others v Director of Immigration,[16] Ng Ka Ling & Others v Director of Immigration (No.2),[17] Lau Kong Yung & Others v Director of Immigration,[18] Director of Immigration v Chong Fung Yuen[19] and, most recently, Vallejos v Commissioner of Registration.[20] 35.Thus, certain basic propositions are authoritatively established. Under the constitutional framework of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the Basic Law is a national law of the PRC, having been enacted by the National People’s Congress pursuant to Article 31 of the Constitution of the PRC.[21] The NPCSC’s power to interpret the Basic Law derives from Article 67(4) of the Constitution of the PRC and is provided for expressly in the Basic Law itself in BL158(1) and is in general and unqualified terms.[22] The exercise of interpretation of the Basic Law under PRC law is one conducted under a different system of law to the common law system in force in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and includes legislative interpretation which can clarify or supplement laws.[23] An interpretation of the Basic Law issued by the NPCSC is binding on the courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.[24] It declares what the law is and has always been since the coming into effect of the Basic Law on 1 July 1997.[25] 36.In these circumstances, unless this Court were to revisit these fundamental propositions of law, it is apparent that many of the questions sought to be raised by Leung and Yau as to the Interpretation have already been authoritatively determined by the Court. In our view, there is no warrant for revisiting those propositions and Leung and Yau’s contentions questioning their correctness are not reasonably arguable. In short, we are satisfied that the Interpretation is clear in its scope and effect, that disqualification of Leung and Yau is the automatic consequence of their declining or neglecting to take the Legco oath, and that it is binding on the courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region as regards the true construction of BL104 at the material time when Leung and Yau purported to take their oaths. 37.In any event, in respect of the other questions sought to be raised by Leung and Yau on the Interpretation in relation to the true construction of BL104, in view of the proper construction of section 21 of the Ordinance as held by the courts below (the proposed challenges to which, we have concluded, are not reasonably arguable) and the unchallenged findings of fact of those courts, the outcome of the present case would be the same irrespective of the Interpretation. We do not consider it to be reasonably arguable that the effect of the Interpretation is to oust the jurisdiction of the courts in respect of the question of whether a member of Legco has validly taken the Legco oath or that it precludes the application of the Ordinance to govern the consequences of declining or neglecting to take a required oath. Conclusion 38.In view of his full written submissions in response to the applications, we did not call on Mr Benjamin Yu SC, counsel for the Chief Executive and Secretary for Justice, after hearing Lord Pannick QC for Leung and Ms Gladys Li SC for Yau. We were satisfied that, regardless of the general and public importance of some of the questions sought to be raised, Leung and Yau’s appeals against the decisions below, declaring them to have been disqualified from the office of Legco member and precluding their re-taking their Legco oaths, are not reasonably arguable and that there is no reasonable prospect of the Court differing from the conclusions of the courts below. 39.In the circumstances, we dismissed the applications for leave to appeal with costs, to include a certificate for two counsel.
Lord Pannick QC, Mr Hectar Pun SC and Mr Anson Wong Yu Yat, instructed by Ho Tse Wai & Partners, for the Applicant in FAMV 9 & 10/2017 Ms Gladys Li SC and Mr Jeffrey Tam, instructed by Khoo & Co., for the Applicant in FAMV 7 & 8/2017 Mr Benjamin Yu SC, Mr Johnny Mok SC, Mr Jimmy Ma and Mr Jenkin Suen, instructed by the Department of Justice, for the Respondents in FAMV 7-10/2017 [1] Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap.484), s.22(1)(b). [2] Li Tak Ming v Secretary for Justice, FAMV 18/1998 (23 November 1998) at p.4; Chan Yu Nam v The Secretary for Justice, FAMV 39/2011 (18 January 2012) at [6]. [3] BL158(1), which provides: “The power of interpretation of this Law shall be vested in the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress.” [4] Under Article 77 of the Basic Law and sections 3 and 4 of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (Cap.382). [5] CFI Judgment at [120] and [125]. [6] CFI Judgment at [123]-[125]. [7] CACV 224, 225, 226 & 227/2016, Judgment dated 30 November 2016 (“CA Judgment”). [8] CFI Judgment at [46], affirmed by the Court of Appeal in the CA Judgment at [41]. [9] CA Judgment, per Cheung CJHC, at [41]. [10] (2014) 17 HKCFAR 689. [11] Ibid. at [28]. [12] Ibid. at [32] (footnotes omitted). [13] Ibid. at [43]. [14] Section D3 at [92] to [100] of the CFI Judgment. [15] CA Judgment at [42] to [44]. [16] (1999) 2 HKCFAR 4. [17] (1999) 2 HKCFAR 141. [18] (1999) 2 HKCFAR 300. [19] (2001) 4 HKCFAR 211. [20] (2013) 16 HKCFAR 45. [21] Ng Ka Ling & Others v Director of Immigration (1999) 2 HKCFAR 4 at p.13A-B. [22] Lau Kong Yung & Others v Director of Immigration (1999) 2 HKCFAR 300 at p.323B-C; Director of Immigration v Chong Fung Yuen (2001) 4 HKCFAR 211 at p.222G-H. [23] Director of Immigration v Chong Fung Yuen (supra) at pp.222J-223A. [24] Ng Ka Ling & Others v Director of Immigration (No.2) (1999) 2 HKCFAR 141 at p.142D; Lau Kong Yung & Others v Director of Immigration (supra) at pp.322D-324E (per Li CJ) and 344C-346E (per Sir Anthony Mason NPJ); Director of Immigration v Chong Fung Yuen (supra) at p.223A-C. [25] Lau Kong Yung & Others v Director of Immigration (supra) at pp.326D-E and 346J-347A. |
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under FAMV 7/2017