The Director of Immigration v. Lau Fong
Read the full judgment text of FAMV 14/2003 on BabelCite. This FAMV judgment was delivered on 17 July 2003 before Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ.
1. There are arguable points of general and public importance and we grant leave to appeal. On the appeal, all points would have to be ventilated, including the various possible statutory powers to deal with alleged fraud and in relation each of them, the appropriate procedure, the standard of satisfaction by the decision maker and the standard of judicial intervention.
Legal issues: Leave to appeal on points of general and public importance
Outcome: Leave to appeal granted.
Cited by 1 case
|
FAMV000014/2003 FAMV No.14 of 2003 IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 14 OF 2003 (CIVIL) (ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM CACV NO. 287 OF 2000) _____________________
_____________________ Appeal Committee: Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Bokhary PJ and Mr Justice Chan PJ Date of Hearing: 17 July 2003 Date of Determination: 17 July 2003 _____________________________ DETERMINATION _____________________________ Chief Justice Li: 1.There are arguable points of general and public importance and we grant leave to appeal. On the appeal, all points would have to be ventilated, including the various possible statutory powers to deal with alleged fraud and in relation each of them, the appropriate procedure, the standard of satisfaction by the decision maker and the standard of judicial intervention. 2.We note that the Respondent is on legal aid. Legal Aid should continue and despite Mr Pun's ability, the Director of Legal Aid would presumably consider it appropriate to instruct leading counsel on a matter of such importance. 3.We note Mr Pannick has stated that the Director of Immigration is bound by the Court of Appeal's judgment. Therefore, the Respondent would have the right to enter Hong Kong after travelling outside Hong Kong on the basis of the present extant permission to stay which I believe would only expire in early 2005.
Representation: Mr David Pannick QC and Mr William Marshall SC (instructed by the Department of Justice) for the applicant Mr Hectar Pun (instructed by Messrs Patrick Wu & Co. and assigned by the Legal Aid Department) for the respondent |
Other judgments that cite this case