PUN TAI SUNG v. IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER

PUN TAI SUNG v. IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER

The judicial review is allowed and the Tribunal's decision is quashed because the Tribunal omitted a material and relevant consideration (the GPPSB reply) and misunderstood or failed to properly evaluate household register evidence such that its conclusion that the applicant failed to prove Hong Kong birth was irrational in public law terms; relief in the form of declaration was declined and the parties were ordered to agree terms of order on remittal/costs or file submissions if they cannot agree.

Citation
PUN TAI SUNG v. IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: Xo'Y; 1st Respondent: 1st Respondent; 2nd Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
1 November 2006
Case Number
HCAL51/2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Judicial review allowed; Tribunal decision quashed; costs order nisi against 2nd respondent; parties directed to agree terms of order within 14 days or file submissions
Legal Topics
Right of Abode, Judicial Review, Tribunal Reasoning, Procedural Impropriety, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
EN
Immigration Administrative Law Constitutional Law Right of Abode Judicial Review Tribunal Reasoning Procedural Impropriety Wednesbury Unreasonableness

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Xo'Y

Applicant

1st Respondent

1st Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was born in Hong Kong and so entitled to right of abode
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal failed to take into account a material consideration (the GPPSB reply)
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal gave adequate reasons and made necessary credibility findings

Ratio Decidendi

The judicial review is allowed and the Tribunal's decision is quashed because the Tribunal omitted a material and relevant consideration (the GPPSB reply) and misunderstood or failed to properly evaluate household register evidence such that its conclusion that the applicant failed to prove Hong Kong birth was irrational in public law terms; relief in the form of declaration was declined and the parties were ordered to agree terms of order on remittal/costs or file submissions if they cannot agree.

Court Disposition

Judicial review allowed; Tribunal decision quashed; costs order nisi against 2nd respondent; parties directed to agree terms of order within 14 days or file submissions

Orders

  • Tribunal determination dated 28 February 2005 quashed
  • Order nisi that the 2nd respondent pay the applicant's costs, to be taxed if not agreed