Q v. Commissioner of Registration

Read the full judgment text of HCAL 229/2015 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 1 February 2019.

1. In paragraph 34, line H, “Given that the applicants’ had not undergone any such operation” should read “Given that the applicants had not undergone any such operation”.

Cited by 5 cases · Cites 1 case

Case No.HCAL 229/2015[2019] HKCFI 295
Court
High Court CFI
Date01 Feb 2019
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCAL 229/2015, 154 & 189/2017

[2019] HKCFI 295

HCAL 229/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 229 OF 2015

_______________

BETWEEN

  Q Applicant

and

  Commissioner of Registration Putative Respondent

_______________

and

HCAL 154/2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 154 OF 2017

_______________

BETWEEN

  R Applicant

and

  Commissioner of Registration Putative Respondent
     

_______________

and

HCAL 189/2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 189 OF 2017

_______________

BETWEEN

  TSE HENRY EDWARD Applicant

and

  Commissioner of Registration Putative Respondent
_______________
  (heard together)  

Before: Hon Au J in Court

Dates of Hearing: 9 - 11 January 2018

Date of Judgment: 1 February 2019

Date of Corrigendum: 8 February 2019

-----------------------------------

C O R R I G E N D U M

-----------------------------------

1.In paragraph 34, line H, “Given that the applicants’ had not undergone any such operation” should read “Given that the applicants had not undergone any such operation”.

2.In paragraph 42, line O – P, “These contentions are in substantive in line with the dissenting judgment of Judge Ranzoni at paragraphs 11 - 25.” should read “These contentions are in substance in line with the dissenting judgment of Judge Ranzoni at paragraphs 11 - 25.”.

3.In paragraph 76, line I, “although not with some difficulty” should read “although not without some difficulty”.

4.In paragraph 96, line E – F, “it must be regarded as proper fully informed consent.” should read “it must be regarded as a proper fully informed consent.”

5.In paragraph 122, line C, “The applicants therefore fail under all the grounds raised in these judicial review on merits.” should read “The applicants therefore fail under all the grounds raised in these judicial reviews on merits.”

6.In paragraph 124, line J, “to be taxed if not agree” should read “to be taxed if not agreed”.

7.In paragraph 127, line D, “amongst” should read “amongst others”.

  (Yolanda Chan)
Clerk to the Honourable Mr. Justice Au