Mar and Another v. Director of Immigration
Read the full judgment text of CACV 77/2017 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 6 January 2020.
1. In respect of the applicability of the finality provision under Section 14AB of the High Court Ordinance, Mr Dykes SC properly accepted that the present case is indistinguishable from H v Director of Immigration [2019] HKCA 1302 .
Cited by 1 case · Cites 1 case
|
CACV 77/2017 [2020] HKCA 27 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 77 OF 2017 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 13/2016) __________________________
__________________________ Before: Hon Poon CJHC, Lam and Kwan VPP in Court Date of Written Submission: 12 December 2019 Date of Judgment: 6 January 2020 ______________________ JUDGMENT ______________________ Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.In respect of the applicability of the finality provision under Section 14AB of the High Court Ordinance, Mr Dykes SC properly accepted that the present case is indistinguishable from H v Director of Immigration [2019] HKCA 1302. 2.Counsel invited us to defer the processing of the Notice of Motion of 26 November 2019 pending the application for leave made to the Appeal Committee in H v Director of Immigration. Counsel said if we dismiss the present application summarily, the applicants would seek leave to appeal from the Appeal Committee. 3.We do not think the matter should be postponed at this level. The better course is for the applicants to seek leave from the Appeal Committee, perhaps at the same time as the application in H v Director of Immigration. 4.We dismiss the Notice of Motion of 26 November 2019 on the ground that our decision of 10 May 2019 is final and dismiss the Inter Partes Summons of 26 November 2019. 5.We also make an order that the applicants’ own costs are to be taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulations.
Mr Philip J Dykes SC, instructed by Daly & Associates, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the applicants Department of Justice, for the putative respondent |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 77/2017