LEI CHAOHUI v. REGISTRATION OF PERSONS TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS

LEI CHAOHUI v. REGISTRATION OF PERSONS TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS

The Certificate merely certified information provided by the father and did not evidence departmental verification; the applicant bore the burden to prove the father's Hong Kong birth and failed to do so; the Commissioner and Tribunal considered the available evidence and reached conclusions open to them, so their decisions were lawful and not irrational; judicial review is refused because reconsideration would not have produced a different outcome.

Citation
LEI CHAOHUI v. REGISTRATION OF PERSONS TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS
Parties
Applicant: Applicant; 1st Respondent: Registration of Persons Tribunal; 2nd Respondent: Commissioner of Registration; Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 May 2013
Case Number
HCAL97/2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment (leave Previously Granted)
Outcome
Judicial review refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Right of Abode, Permanent Residency, Judicial Review, Standard of Review, Evidence Verification
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Public Law Right of Abode Permanent Residency Judicial Review Standard of Review Evidence Verification

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Applicant

Applicant

Registration of Persons Tribunal

1st Respondent

Commissioner of Registration

2nd Respondent

Director of Immigration

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment (leave Previously Granted)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Department's Certificate of Registered Particulars constituted an official verified record establishing the father's place of birth in Hong Kong
  2. 2 Whether the Commissioner and the Tribunal failed to take into account a relevant material (the Certificate)
  3. 3 Whether the Commissioner and the Tribunal's findings were irrational or Wednesbury unreasonable given the evidence and Certificate

Ratio Decidendi

The Certificate merely certified information provided by the father and did not evidence departmental verification; the applicant bore the burden to prove the father's Hong Kong birth and failed to do so; the Commissioner and Tribunal considered the available evidence and reached conclusions open to them, so their decisions were lawful and not irrational; judicial review is refused because reconsideration would not have produced a different outcome.

Court Disposition

Judicial review refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • Costs awarded to the Commissioner and the Director: one set of costs with certificate for counsel, to be taxed if not agreed
  • Applicant's own costs to be taxed in accordance with legal aid regulations