Sun Jie v. Registration of Persons Tribunal and Others
Read the full judgment text of FAMV 20/2006 on BabelCite. This FAMV judgment was delivered on 30 May 2006 before Hon Rogers VP, Le Pichon JA, Sakhrani J.
Civil procedure – leave to appeal – Court of Final Appeal – ordinary residence – permission to stay – permanent resident status – right of abode – certiorari – Registration of Persons Tribunal – Director of Immigration – Whether a period of absence from Hong Kong without permission to stay discontinues ordinary residence for permanent resident eligibility – Court found no merit in application – Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal issues: Ordinary residence and permission to stay
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused.
|
cacv 320/2004 in the high court of the hong kong special administrative region court of appeal civil appeal no. 320 of 2004 (on appeal from HCAL NO. 186 of 2002) ______________________
BETWEEN
Before: Hon Rogers VP, Le Pichon JA and Sakhrani J in Court Date of Hearing: 30 May 2006 Date of Judgment: 30 May 2006 Date of Handing Down Reasons for Judgment: 21 June 2006 _________________________ REASONS FOR JUDGMENT _________________________ Hon Rogers VP: 1.This was an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under the provisions of section 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484. This court refused the application for leave to appeal with reasons to be given in writing, which we now do. 2.The background to this application can be gleaned from the judgment of this court dated 13 December 2005. The question which was said to be of great general or public importance was:
3.Mr Yau, who appeared on behalf of the applicant, indicated that although the reasoning in this court’s judgment was logical and was simple to understand, it, in effect, added a further dimension to the meaning of ordinary residence. For my part, I find it difficult to understand how it does. 4.Somewhat as an ancillary argument, it was contended that the effect of this court’s decision denied the applicant the opportunity to have the Director of Immigration exercise a discretion in his favour to allow him to remain in Hong Kong even if he did not have any right to demand that. 5.In my view this, too, cannot be a ground for quashing the decision of the Director who had rejected the applicant’s application for verification of eligibility for a permanent identity card. In summary, I regret to have to say that I see no merit in the application. Hon Le Pichon JA: 6.I agree. Hon Sakhrani J: 7.I also agree.
Mr Albert Yau, instructed by Messrs Hastings & Co., for the Applicant Mr Daniel Wan, instructed by Department of Justice, for the 2nd & 3rd Respondents Application for leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal dismissed: see FAMV20/2006 dated 28 September 2006 |
Further hearings and rulings under FAMV 20/2006