DOCSLIB.ORG

On Appeal from Hcal No

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

由此 A A CACV 87/2010 B B IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE C C HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION D COURT OF APPEAL D CIVIL APPEAL NO. 87 OF 2010 E E (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 75 OF 2009) F F G BETWEEN G ASIF ALI Applicant H H And st I DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION 1 Respondent I nd SECRETARY FOR SECURITY 2 Respondent J J K K Before: Hon Stock VP, Fok JA and Lam J in Court L Date of Hearing: 4 March 2011 L Date of Handing Down Judgment: 28 June 2011 M M J U D G M E N T N N O O Hon Stock VP: P P The issue Q Q 1. Section 2(4)(b) of the Immigration Ordinance provides that a R R person shall not be treated as ordinarily resident in Hong Kong during any period of imprisonment or detention pursuant to the sentence or order of any S S court. T T U U V V 由此 - 2 - A A 2. The question which arises in this case concerns the effect of that B B provision upon a period of remand in custody pending a trial that results in a C conviction: is that period excluded from categorisation as a period of ordinary C residence? D D E Introduction E F F 3. This is an appeal from a decision of Andrew Cheung J (as he then was) on 25 March 2010 whereby he dismissed an application for judicial G G review. H H 4. The applicant’s case is that in February 2006, he made an I I application for verification of status as a permanent resident but that in May J 2007 that application was wrongfully rejected by the Director of Immigration. J In November 2007 the Secretary for Security issued a deportation order K K against him and in June 2008 refused to rescind that order. Since a Hong L Kong permanent resident enjoys the right of abode and that right carries with L it the right not to have a deportation order made against him, it was said that M M those two deportation decisions were also unlawful. So in July 2009 the N applicant filed an application for leave to apply for judicial review of those N three decisions. Leave was granted and it is the review of those decisions O O with which this appeal is concerned. P P Permission to stay Q Q 5. The applicant is a national of Pakistan who came to Hong Kong R R on 23 May 1997. He was then aged 16 years and was permitted to enter as a S S visitor. He has a father and siblings who reside in Hong Kong. T T U U V V 由此 - 3 - A A 6. In August 1997, his status was changed to that of a dependant of B B his father. His permission to remain on that basis was extended from time to C time, last expiring on 18 March 2006. C D D 7. It is common ground that but for the applicant’s detention and E subsequent sentence of imprisonment consequent upon the initiation of E criminal proceedings in late 2005, the applicant had by late March 2006 been F F ordinarily resident in Hong Kong for at least seven years. G G The criminal proceedings H H 8. In August 2004, there was a fracas between two groups in Tsim I I Sha Tsui. The applicant was a member of one of the groups. One of the J men was charged with two counts of wounding with intent. The applicant J testified for him in August 2005 and in the course of that testimony admitted K K that he was in fact the assailant. So in September 2005 he was arrested for L those two offences. L M M 9. He was at first placed on bail, with no reporting restrictions and N no requirement that he should not leave Hong Kong. But when the case was N transferred to the District Court on 25 November 2005, he was remanded in O O custody pending trial. On 30 March 2006, he was convicted after trial and P sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment. P Q Q Correspondence R R 10. On 14 February 2006, that is to say whilst the applicant was in S custody awaiting trial, a letter was written in Urdu, signed by the applicant to S the Director of Immigration, the translation of which reads as follows: T T U U V V 由此 - 4 - A A “With due respect, it is requested that my name, Asif Ali [ID no. B provided] with place and date of issue, Hong Kong 2001. B Respected sir, I have not been granted an unconditional stay yet. And my visa is going to be expired on 18 th of March, next March. C C Either demanding an extension stay or an unconditional stay, in order to apply for Hong Kong permanent ID, I need your suggestions so D that I can rest on aside. I would be obliged to the Sir for this favour D or then send me a form which can solve out for me. I should be obliged to you for the rest of my life. I certify this declaration upon E E reading and listening and signed. F The entire content is a true statement. I put my signature having F read it, together with the witnesses. Thanks to you. Declarant” G G 11. The envelope was addressed to the Director of Immigration, H Right of Abode section and the reverse side of the envelope made clear that H the addressee was at Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre. I I 12. It is evident that the letter was received by the Right of Abode J J Section of the Immigration Department on 17 February 2006. K K 13. The reply came from the Information and Liaison Section and L L was dated 6 March 2006, addressed to the applicant at the Lai Chi Kok M Reception Centre. It read: M N “Thank you for your letter of 14-2-2006 which was received on N 17 February 2006. O Generally speaking, foreign nationals who are permitted to work, O study or reside in Hong Kong should apply for extension of stay within one month before the expiry of their limit of stay if they P P intend to continue residence in Hong Kong. Application for extension of stay should be submitted to the Extension Section (5/F Q Immigration Tower, 7 Gloucester Road, Wanchai, Hong Kong) or Q any Immigration branch office with the following documents: R (1) a completed application form ID 91; R (2) applicant’s travel document and HK identity card; S S (3) Sponsor’s travel document or Hong Kong Permanent Identity T Card; Sponsor’s undertaking of continuous sponsorship and T sponsor’s declaration of not absent from Hong Kong for more than 180 days in the previous 12 months and for dependant U U V V 由此 - 5 - A A spouse, applicant’s declaration of no change in matrimonial B relationship. B Application form for extension of stay (ID 91) could be downloaded C C at the following website [address given]. D The fee for extension of stay is HK$135. D In general, applications for extension of stay require the applicant to E submit the application and to collect the visa. The applicant must E be in Hong Kong at the time of application and collection of visa. Application by fax or e-mail is not acceptable. F F I hope you will find the above information useful.” G G 14. The applicant took no further steps and on 30 March he was, as H H I have indicated, sentenced to a term of three years’ imprisonment. I I 15. What happened next was that by letter dated 1 September 2006, J the Director notified the applicant that he was considering applying for the J applicant’s deportation because the conviction for wounding with intent led K K the Director to conclude that the applicant’s continued presence in Hong Kong L posed a threat to law and order. L M M 16. The applicant then instructed solicitors who, in October 2006, N asserted that the applicant was entitled to the right of abode in Hong Kong and N an application form entitled “Application for Verification of Eligibility for O O Permanent Identity Card” was forwarded to the Director in November 2006. P It was therein asserted that the period of ordinary residence in Hong Kong was P 21 August 1997 to 24 November 2005. With the application was a Q Q declaration that the applicant had taken Hong Kong as his place of permanent R residence. R S S 17. The internal records of the Immigration Department show that the Director took the view that the period from 25 November 2005 to 29 March T T 2006 was a period of detention and therefore constituted a break in continuity U U V V 由此 - 6 - A A of ordinary residence. It is interesting, but not conclusive, to note that one of B B the minutes in the file of the Department puts forward the view that there was C a weak basis upon which to suggest that the applicant’s letter of 14 February C 2006 was not an application for a permanent identity card. D D E 18. In a letter dated 22 January 2007, those acting for the applicant E asserted that the letter of 14 February 2006 should be taken as the application F F for verification of eligibility for a permanent identity card.
Recommended publications
  • Women Readers of Middle Temple Celebrating 100 Years of Women at Middle Temple the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales

    Women Readers of Middle Temple Celebrating 100 Years of Women at Middle Temple the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales

    The Honourable Society of the Middle Temple Middle Society Honourable the The of 2019 Issue 59 Michaelmas 2019 Issue 59 Women Readers of Middle Temple Celebrating 100 Years of Women at Middle Temple The Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales Practice Note (Relevance of Law Reporting) [2019] ICLR 1 Catchwords — Indexing of case law — Structured taxonomy of subject matter — Identification of legal issues raised in particular cases — Legal and factual context — “Words and phrases” con- strued — Relevant legislation — European and International instruments The common law, whose origins were said to date from the reign of King Henry II, was based on the notion of a single set of laws consistently applied across the whole of England and Wales. A key element in its consistency was the principle of stare decisis, according to which decisions of the senior courts created binding precedents to be followed by courts of equal or lower status in later cases. In order to follow a precedent, the courts first needed to be aware of its existence, which in turn meant that it had to be recorded and published in some way. Reporting of cases began in the form of the Year Books, which in the 16th century gave way to the publication of cases by individual reporters, known collectively as the Nominate Reports. However, by the middle of the 19th century, the variety of reports and the variability of their quality were such as to provoke increasing criticism from senior practitioners and the judiciary. The solution proposed was the establishment of a body, backed by the Inns of Court and the Law Society, which would be responsible for the publication of accurate coverage of the decisions of senior courts in England and Wales.
  • (2015-16) Volume 30 Inland Revenue Board of Review Decisions in the Court of the Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administr

    (2015-16) Volume 30 Inland Revenue Board of Review Decisions in the Court of the Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administr

    (2015-16) VOLUME 30 INLAND REVENUE BOARD OF REVIEW DECISIONS FACV No 16 of 2015 IN THE COURT OF THE FINAL APPEAL OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION FINAL APPEAL NO 16 OF 2015 (CIVIL) (ON APPEAL FROM CACV NO 41 OF 2010) ____________________________ BETWEEN st CHURCH BODY OF THE HONG KONG 1 Appellant st SHENG KUNG HUI (1 Respondent) nd HONG KONG SHENG 2 Appellant nd KUNG HUI FOUNDATION (2 Respondent) - and - COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE Respondent (Appellant) ____________________________ Before: Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ, Mr Justice Tang PJ, Mr Justice Fok PJ, Mr Justice Chan NPJ and Mr Justice Gummow NPJ Date of Hearing: 8 January 2016 Date of Judgment: 4 February 2016 _______________________________ J U D G M E N T _______________________________ 377 (2015-16) VOLUME 30 INLAND REVENUE BOARD OF REVIEW DECISIONS Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ: 1. I agree with the judgements of Mr Justice Tang and Mr Justice Fok PJJ and with the additional observations of Mr Justice Chan NPJ. Mr Justice Tang PJ: Introduction 2. Section 14 of the Inland Revenue Ordinance, Cap 112, provides that profits tax shall be chargeable — on every person carrying a trade in Hong Kong in respect of his assessable profits. Trade is defined in s 2 as including “every trade and manufacture, and every adventure and concern in the nature of trade”. 3. The respondents in this appeal by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue (“the Commissioner”) are the Church Body of the Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui and the Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Foundation. They are respectively the incorporation of the Anglican Church in Hong Kong (“the Church Body”) and the incorporation of the Anglican Bishop of Hong Kong (“the Foundation”).
  • List of Appendices

    List of Appendices

    List of Appendices Appendix 1 130 Highlights of Events 2005 Appendix 2 134 List of Judges and Judicial Officers Appendix 3 139 Structure of Courts Appendix 4 140 Membership List of the Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission Appendix 5 142 Membership List of the Court Users' Committees Appendix 6 146 Membership List of the Judicial Studies Board Appendix 7 148 Training Activities Organised / Co-ordinated by the Judicial Studies Board Appendix 8 154 Number of Visits and Visitors to the Judiciary in 2004 and 2005 Appendix 9 155 Expenditure and Revenue of the Judiciary for 2004-2005 Appendix 10 156 司法機構政務處的架構 Organisation of the Judiciary Administration Appendix 11 157 Number of Complaints Against Judges and Judicial Officers Appendix 12 158 Number of Complaints Against the Judiciary Administration 129 Appendix 1 Highlights of Events 2005 Date Events The Hon Mr Justice Tang, Judge of the Court of First Instance of the High Court, was appointed as Justice of Appeal of the Court of Appeal of the High Court A nine-member delegation from the Supreme People’s Court, the People’s Republic of China, visited the Hong Kong Judiciary The Hon Mr Justice Henry Fryberg, Justice of the Supreme Court of Queensland, Australia, and Mr Simon Lee, Commissioner of Queensland Government Trade and Investment Office, Hong Kong and South China, visited the Hong Kong Judiciary The Chief Justice declared opening of the 2005 Legal Year A nine-member delegation led by Mr Kairat Mami, Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan, visited the Hong Kong
  • Cb(4)590/12-13(01)

    Cb(4)590/12-13(01)

    立法會 Legislative Council LC Paper No. CB(4)590/12-13(01) Ref : CB4/HS/1/12 Background brief prepared by the Legislative Council Secretariat Subcommittee on Proposed Senior Judicial Appointments Purpose 1. This paper provides background information on the procedure for endorsement of senior judicial appointments by the Legislative Council ("LegCo") under Article 73(7) of the Basic Law ("BL 73(7)") and gives a brief account of the relevant discussions by LegCo committees. Relevant provisions of the Basic law and the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) 2. BL 48(6) confers on the Chief Executive ("CE") the power and function to appoint judges of the courts at all levels in accordance with legal procedures. In accordance with BL 88, judges shall be appointed by CE on the recommendation of an independent commission, namely, the Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission ("JORC"). 3. In the case of the appointment of judges of the Court of Final Appeal ("CFA") and the Chief Judge of the High Court, BL 90 provides that CE shall, in addition to following the procedures prescribed in BL 88, obtain the endorsement of LegCo. Subject to the endorsement of LegCo, CE shall report such appointment to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress for the record. BL 73(7) correspondingly confers on LegCo the power and function to endorse the appointment of CFA judges and the Chief Judge of High Court. Such procedure is also stipulated in section 7A of the CFA Ordinance. - 2 - JORC Membership 4. Pursuant to BL88 and the JORC Ordinance (Cap.
  • 香港特别行政区排名名单 the Precedence List of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

    香港特别行政区排名名单 the Precedence List of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

    二零二一年九月 September 2021 香港特别行政区排名名单 THE PRECEDENCE LIST OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION 1. 行政长官 林郑月娥女士，大紫荆勋贤，GBS The Chief Executive The Hon Mrs Carrie LAM CHENG Yuet-ngor, GBM, GBS 2. 终审法院首席法官 张举能首席法官，大紫荆勋贤 The Chief Justice of the Court of Final The Hon Andrew CHEUNG Kui-nung, Appeal GBM 3. 香港特别行政区前任行政长官(见注一) Former Chief Executives of the HKSAR (See Note 1) 董建华先生，大紫荆勋贤 The Hon TUNG Chee Hwa, GBM 曾荫权先生，大紫荆勋贤 The Hon Donald TSANG, GBM 梁振英先生，大紫荆勋贤，GBS, JP The Hon C Y LEUNG, GBM, GBS, JP 4. 政务司司长 李家超先生，SBS, PDSM, JP The Chief Secretary for Administration The Hon John LEE Ka-chiu, SBS, PDSM, JP 5. 财政司司长 陈茂波先生，大紫荆勋贤，GBS, MH, JP The Financial Secretary The Hon Paul CHAN Mo-po, GBM, GBS, MH, JP 6. 律政司司长 郑若骅女士，大紫荆勋贤，GBS, SC, JP The Secretary for Justice The Hon Teresa CHENG Yeuk-wah, GBM, GBS, SC, JP 7. 立法会主席 梁君彦议员，大紫荆勋贤，GBS, JP The President of the Legislative Council The Hon Andrew LEUNG Kwan-yuen, GBM, GBS, JP - 2 - 行政会议非官守议员召集人 陈智思议员，大紫荆勋贤，GBS, JP The Convenor of the Non-official The Hon Bernard Charnwut CHAN, Members of the Executive Council GBM, GBS, JP 其他行政会议成员 Other Members of the Executive Council 史美伦议员，大紫荆勋贤，GBS, JP The Hon Mrs Laura CHA SHIH May-lung, GBM, GBS, JP 李国章议员，大紫荆勋贤，GBS, JP Prof the Hon Arthur LI Kwok-cheung, GBM, GBS, JP 周松岗议员，大紫荆勋贤，GBS, JP The Hon CHOW Chung-kong, GBM, GBS, JP 罗范椒芬议员，大紫荆勋贤，GBS, JP The Hon Mrs Fanny LAW FAN Chiu-fun, GBM, GBS, JP 黄锦星议员，GBS, JP 环境局局长 The Hon WONG Kam-sing, GBS, JP Secretary for the Environment # 林健锋议员，GBS, JP The Hon Jeffrey LAM Kin-fung, GBS, JP 叶国谦议员，大紫荆勋贤，GBS, JP The Hon
  • Cacv 147/2010 in the High Court Of

    Cacv 147/2010 in the High Court Of

    由此 A A B CACV 147/2010 B C C IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE D D HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL E E CIVIL APPEAL NO. 147 OF 2010 F F (ON APPEAL FROM HCCL 16 OF 2006) G G BETWEEN H H WANG RUIYUN Plaintiff I I and J J GEM GLOBAL YIELD FUND LIMITED Defendant K K L L M Before : Hon Tang Ag. CJHC, Cheung and Fok JJA in Court M Date of Hearing : 3 June 2011 N N Date of Judgment : 20 June 2011 O O P J U D G M E N T P Q Q Hon Tang Ag. CJHC : R R 1. I have the advantage of reading Cheung JA’s judgment S in draft. I agree with it and have nothing to add. S T T U U V V 由此 A A - 2 - B B C C D D Hon Cheung JA : E E 2. This is an appeal by the defendant against the F assessment of damages by Master de Souza. F G G Procedural background H H 3. On 22 March 2006 the plaintiff commenced the present I action against the defendant and obtained an injunction from Yam J I to restrain the defendant from dealing with certain shares in J J Bestway International Holdings Ltd (‘Bestway’) and from K K withdrawing money from an escrow account. After the service of the Amended Statement of Claim and the Defence and L L Counterclaim, the plaintiff obtained summary judgment from M M Stone J on 6 March 2007 against the defendant for HK$40,503,237.28 and HK$930,412.15.
  • FACV No. 8 of 2018 [2019] HKCFA 19 in the COURT of FINAL APPEAL

    FACV No. 8 of 2018 [2019] HKCFA 19 in the COURT of FINAL APPEAL

    FACV No. 8 of 2018 [2019] HKCFA 19 IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION FINAL APPEAL NO. 8 OF 2018 (CIVIL) (ON APPEAL FROM CACV NO. 126 OF 2017) _________________________ BETWEEN LEUNG CHUN KWONG Appellant and SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE 1st Respondent COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE 2nd Respondent and INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION OF Intervener JURISTS _________________________ Before: Chief Justice Ma, Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ, Mr Justice Fok PJ, Mr Justice Tang NPJ and Mr Justice Gleeson NPJ Date of Hearing 7 May 2019 Date of Judgment: 6 June 2019 - 2 - JUDGMENT The Court: A. Introduction 1. This appeal concerns equality under the law and involves an application of the legal principles identified and applied in this Court’s recent decision in QT v Director of Immigration.1 It arises in the context of a claim to entitlement to spousal medical and dental benefits under the Civil Service Regulations (“CSRs”) and to opt for joint assessment of salaries tax under the Inland Revenue Ordinance.2 As will be seen, the appellant claims he has been unlawfully discriminated against on the basis of his sexual orientation. A.1 The parties 2. The appellant is a Hong Kong permanent resident of Chinese nationality. He commenced employment as an immigration officer with the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in 2003 and, as such, is subject to the CSRs. He is homosexual and, in 2005, met his partner, Mr Scott Adams. The couple began cohabiting in 2013 and, on 18 April 2014, they were married in New Zealand.
  • JORC Report 2010

    JORC Report 2010

    JORC Report 2010 The work of the Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission (“JORC”) is set out in two separate reports. First, a report entitled “Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission” is published to provide an overall account of the JORC, identifying the different levels of court within its responsibility. Secondly, an annual report is published to report on the work of the JORC during the year. This JORC Report 2010 provides an account of the work of the JORC during 2010. In an effort to contribute to the protection of the environment, we will only upload both Reports on our Website. Geoffrey Ma Chief Justice Chairman of the Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission Membership of JORC 1. In 2010, the Chief Executive re-appointed three members of JORC for a term of two years from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2012. The membership in 2010 is listed below – Ex officio chairman and member The Honourable Chief Justice Andrew LI Kwok-nang, GBM (Chairman) (up to 31 August 2010) The Honourable Chief Justice Geoffrey MA Tao-li (Chairman) (from 1 September 2010) The Honourable WONG Yan Lung, SC, JP (Secretary for Justice) Judges The Honourable Mr. Justice Roberto Alexandre Vieira RIBEIRO (from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2010) (from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2012) The Honourable Mr. Justice Louis TONG Po-sun (from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2010) (from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2012) Barrister and solicitor Mr. Rimsky Yuen, SC (barrister) (from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2011) Mr. Michael Lintern-Smith (solicitor) (from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2011) Persons not connected with the practice of law Professor Lap-Chee TSUI (from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2011) Dr Rosanna WONG Yick-ming, DBE, JP (from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2011) 2 Dr Edgar CHENG Wai-kin, GBS, JP (from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2010) (from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2012) 3 Secretary of JORC 2.
  • Hkcfa 12 in the Court of Final Appeal of the Hong

    Hkcfa 12 in the Court of Final Appeal of the Hong

    Press Summary (English) Press Summary (Chinese) FACV No. 14 of 2017 [2018] HKCFA 12 IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION FINAL APPEAL NO.14 OF 2017 (CIVIL) (ON APPEAL FROM CACV NO. 272 OF 2015) ____________________ BETWEEN (1) ASTRO NUSANTARA Applicants/ INTERNATIONAL B.V. (2) ASTRO NUSANTARA Claimants in the HOLDINGS B.V. Arbitration/ (3) ASTRO MULTIMEDIA Judgment Creditors CORPORATION N.V. (4) ASTRO MULTIMEDIA N.V. (Respondents) (5) ASTRO OVERSEAS LIMITED (formerly known as AAAN (Bermuda) Limited) (6) ASTRO ALL ASIA NETWORKS PLC (7) MEASAT BROADCAST NETWORK SYSTEMS SDN BHD (8) ALL ASIA MULTIMEDIA NETWORK FZ-LLC and (1) PT AYUNDA PRIMA MITRA (2) PT FIRST MEDIA TBK (Appellant) (formerly known as PT BROADBAND MULTIMEDIA TBK) (3) PT DIRECT VISION Defendants/Respondents in the Arbitration/ Judgment Debtors ____________________ Before: Chief Justice Ma, Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ, Mr Justice Tang PJ, Mr Justice Fok PJ and Lord Reed NPJ Date of Hearing: 12 March 2018 Date of Judgment: 11 April 2018 ________________________ J U D G M E N T _________________________ Chief Justice Ma: 1. I agree with the judgment of Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ. Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ: 2. This appeal raises issues concerning the principles applicable where a party seeks leave to resist enforcement of a New York Convention arbitration award out of time. 3. The eight respondent companies, members of a Malaysian media group conveniently referred to as “Astro”, were the claimants in the arbitration. The 1st to 5th, 7th and 8th respondents are subsidiaries of the 6th respondent, a substantial company listed on the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange.
  • 香港特別行政區排名名單 the Precedence List of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

    香港特別行政區排名名單 the Precedence List of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

    二零二一年九月 September 2021 香港特別行政區排名名單 THE PRECEDENCE LIST OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION 1. 行政長官 林鄭月娥女士，大紫荊勳賢，GBS The Chief Executive The Hon Mrs Carrie LAM CHENG Yuet-ngor, GBM, GBS 2. 終審法院首席法官 張舉能首席法官，大紫荊勳賢 The Chief Justice of the Court of Final The Hon Andrew CHEUNG Kui-nung, Appeal GBM 3. 香港特別行政區前任行政長官(見註一) Former Chief Executives of the HKSAR (See Note 1) 董建華先生，大紫荊勳賢 The Hon TUNG Chee Hwa, GBM 曾蔭權先生，大紫荊勳賢 The Hon Donald TSANG, GBM 梁振英先生，大紫荊勳賢，GBS, JP The Hon C Y LEUNG, GBM, GBS, JP 4. 政務司司長 李家超先生，SBS, PDSM, JP The Chief Secretary for Administration The Hon John LEE Ka-chiu, SBS, PDSM, JP 5. 財政司司長 陳茂波先生，大紫荊勳賢，GBS, MH, JP The Financial Secretary The Hon Paul CHAN Mo-po, GBM, GBS, MH, JP 6. 律政司司長 鄭若驊女士，大紫荊勳賢，GBS, SC, JP The Secretary for Justice The Hon Teresa CHENG Yeuk-wah, GBM, GBS, SC, JP 7. 立法會主席 梁君彥議員，大紫荊勳賢，GBS, JP The President of the Legislative Council The Hon Andrew LEUNG Kwan-yuen, GBM, GBS, JP - 2 - 行政會議非官守議員召集人 陳智思議員，大紫荊勳賢，GBS, JP The Convenor of the Non-official The Hon Bernard Charnwut CHAN, Members of the Executive Council GBM, GBS, JP 其他行政會議成員 Other Members of the Executive Council 史美倫議員，大紫荊勳賢，GBS, JP The Hon Mrs Laura CHA SHIH May-lung, GBM, GBS, JP 李國章議員，大紫荊勳賢，GBS, JP Prof the Hon Arthur LI Kwok-cheung, GBM, GBS, JP 周松崗議員，大紫荊勳賢，GBS, JP The Hon CHOW Chung-kong, GBM, GBS, JP 羅范椒芬議員，大紫荊勳賢，GBS, JP The Hon Mrs Fanny LAW FAN Chiu-fun, GBM, GBS, JP 黃錦星議員，GBS, JP 環境局局長 The Hon WONG Kam-sing, GBS, JP Secretary for the Environment # 林健鋒議員，GBS, JP The Hon Jeffrey LAM Kin-fung, GBS, JP 葉國謙議員，大紫荊勳賢，GBS, JP The Hon
  • Cacv 59/2010 in the High Court of the Hong Kong

    Cacv 59/2010 in the High Court of the Hong Kong

    由此 A A CACV 59/2010 B B IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE C C HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION D COURT OF APPEAL D CIVIL APPEAL NO. 59 OF 2010 E E (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 31 OF 2009) F F G BETWEEN G CH Applicant H H And I DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION Respondent I J J Before: Hon Hartmann and Fok JJA and To J in Court K K Date of Hearing: 14 September 2011 Date of Judgment: 14 September 2011 L L Date of Handing Down Reasons for Judgment: 26 September 2011 M M N R E A S O N S F O R J U D G M E N T N O O Hon Hartmann JA (giving the Reasons for Judgment of the Court): P P 1. By notice of motion dated 27 June 2011, the applicant sought leave Q to appeal this Court’s judgment of 18 April 2011 to the Court of Final Appeal. Q The application was made pursuant to s. 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal R R Ordinance, Cap. 484, on the basis that questions of great general or public S S importance or otherwise questions that should be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision arise in the appeal. Having heard submissions, we T T dismissed the application. U U V V 由此 - 2 - A A 2. The applicant, CH, came to Hong Kong on 12 July 2008. He was B B in possession of a Cameroonian passport and was permitted to remain here as a C visitor for a period of 14 days, his last permitted day in Hong Kong being C 26 July 2008.
  • W V. Registrar of Marriages, Hong Kong Court of Appeal

    W V. Registrar of Marriages, Hong Kong Court of Appeal

    A A CACV 266/2010 B B IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE C C HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION D COURT OF APPEAL D CIVIL APPEAL NO. 266 OF 2010 E E (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 120 OF 2009) F F BETWEEN G G W Applicant and H H REGISTRAR OF MARRIAGES Respondent I I J J Before: Hon Tang VP, Hartmann and Fok JJA in Court Dates of Hearing: 12 & 13 October 2011 K K Date of Handing Down Judgment: 25 November 2011 L L J U D G M E N T M M N Hon Tang VP: N O O 1. I have had the advantage of reading Fok JA’s judgment in draft. I am in full agreement and have nothing to add. P P Q Hon Hartmann JA: Q R R 2. I agree with the judgment of Fok JA. S S T T U U V V A - 2 - A Hon Fok JA: B B C A. Introduction C D D 3. The appellant is a post-operative transsexual woman, who wishes to marry her male partner. The respondent has construed the relevant E E provisions of the Marriage Ordinance, Cap. 179 (“the MO”) as not permitting F F such a marriage. The appellant challenges the respondent’s construction of those provisions. Alternatively, the appellant says that the provisions, if G G construed correctly by the respondent, are unconstitutional being in breach of H H various articles of the Basic Law (“BL”), the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (“HKBOR”) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights I I (“ICCPR”).