CHEUNG KIN HO AND OTHERS v. REGISTRATION OF PERSONS TRIBUNAL

CHEUNG KIN HO AND OTHERS v. REGISTRATION OF PERSONS TRIBUNAL

Leave was refused because the legitimate expectation argued by applicants was not reasonably arguable: the expectation would require the decision‑maker to act contrary to the clear statutory prohibition in s 2(4)(a)(i) of the Immigration Ordinance, and the subsidiary regulations cited (reg 3D(1) and reg 5(1A)) do not empower the registration officer to validate or issue HKPICs to persons who do not have the right of abode.

Citation
CHEUNG KIN HO AND OTHERS v. REGISTRATION OF PERSONS TRIBUNAL
Parties
1st Applicant: Cheung Kin Ho; 2nd Applicant: Cheung Kim Wing; 3rd Applicant: Cheung Kim Fung; 4th Applicant: Cheung Chi Man; Putative Respondent: Registration of Persons Tribunal; Putative Interested Party: Commissioner of Registration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 June 2014
Case Number
HCAL2/2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave) / Leave Application Heard and Refused at First Instance
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Legitimate Expectation, Right of Abode, Ordinary Residence, Registration of Persons, Judicial Review, Costs
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Statutory Interpretation Legitimate Expectation Right of Abode Ordinary Residence Registration of Persons Judicial Review +1 more

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 7 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cheung Kin Ho

1st Applicant

Cheung Kim Wing

2nd Applicant

Cheung Kim Fung

3rd Applicant

Cheung Chi Man

4th Applicant

Registration of Persons Tribunal

Putative Respondent

Commissioner of Registration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave) / Leave Application Heard and Refused at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants had a legitimate expectation that their residence would be treated as ordinary residence despite prior notice of fraud
  2. 2 Whether the registration officer had discretion to retain or issue HKPICs contrary to primary legislation
  3. 3 Whether s 2(4)(a)(i) Immigration Ordinance precludes the claimed legitimate expectation

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the legitimate expectation argued by applicants was not reasonably arguable: the expectation would require the decision‑maker to act contrary to the clear statutory prohibition in s 2(4)(a)(i) of the Immigration Ordinance, and the subsidiary regulations cited (reg 3D(1) and reg 5(1A)) do not empower the registration officer to validate or issue HKPICs to persons who do not have the right of abode.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave application dismissed
  • No order as to costs