Rashid Zafar Ghori v. Director of Immigration and Another

Read the full judgment text of HCAL 786/2024 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 15 July 2024.

1. At page 12, between lines K and L, “However, the majority of such period cannot be attributed to a lack of diligence on the part of the Applicant” should read “However, the majority of such period cannot be attributed to a lack of diligence on the part of the Respondents”.

Cited by 2 cases · Cites 1 case

Case No.HCAL 786/2024[2024] HKCFI 1863
Court
High Court CFI
Date15 Jul 2024
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCAL 786/2024

[2024] HKCFI 1863

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 786 OF 2024

________________________

BETWEEN

  RASHID ZAFAR GHORI Applicant
  and  
  DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION 1st Respondent
  SECRETARY FOR SECURITY 2nd Respondent

________________________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge Phoebe Man in Court
Date of Hearing: 15 July 2024
Date of Judgment: 15 July 2024
Date of Corrigendum: 16 July 2024

________________________

CORRIGENDUM

________________________

Please note the following amendment in the Judgment dated 15 July 2024:

1.At page 12, between lines K and L, “However, the majority of such period cannot be attributed to a lack of diligence on the part of the Applicant” should read “However, the majority of such period cannot be attributed to a lack of diligence on the part of the Respondents”.

  (Billy Hung)
for Registrar, High Court

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under HCAL 786/2024