8 Dec 2020
The Director lawfully refused the dependant visa because the applicant failed to meet the established eligibility criteria (including the No Known Record Requirement); the applicant's public law grounds were general, not reasonably arguable and lacked a realistic prospect of success, so leave was dismissed.
12 Nov 2020
The Court refused leave on the substantive issues because the Court of Appeal's reasoning that the 'no record' requirement was properly construed as set out in BI v Director of Immigration was cogent and not reasonably arguable to be wrong; executive statements such as the LegCo Brief do not alter the primacy of the Guidebook and cannot be treated as determinative absent proper evidence; factual issues (passport, trivial records) do not raise points of law of sufficient general importance.
9 Aug 2016
The court held that on proper construction the NRD Requirement is an eligibility criterion within the Dependant Policy, the Director did not misapply or unlawfully fetter his discretion in treating or applying it, the requirement is not unconstitutionally vague, the Director took relevant considerations into account and provided adequate reasons, and the judicial reviews were dismissed; ex parte leave in MN and CCO was set aside for delay and no extension of time was granted.
22 Apr 2016
The court held the Dependant Policy is premised on dependency not an open-ended family reunion objective; the Financial Sufficiency Requirement is a lawful eligibility criterion and was properly applied; the Director did not fail to take legally relevant considerations nor act Wednesbury unreasonably or procedurally unfairly; the applicants' delay in bringing judicial review was unjustified and ex parte leave was set aside and the application dismissed.
28 May 2013
The court held the Secretariat's adoption of the HKIC first-issuance date as a bright-line test for 'new arrival' was a rational and permissible exercise of administrative discretion to implement the Programme's objective and to achieve administrative and cost efficiency; the test was not Wednesbury unreasonable and the applicant's alternative case-by-case approach was impractical and unnecessary.
17 Jun 2011
The Scheme, properly construed, delegates the medical determination of whether an applicant is 'severely disabled' to specified medical officers/assessment boards; the Director and the SSAB lawfully relied on those medical certifications and did not unlawfully delegate, fetter their discretion or act irrationally in rejecting the applicant's claims; consequently the challenged decisions were lawful and the appeal is dismissed.
9 Jan 1999
The court ordered postponement of the election pending judicial review because a large number (291) of potentially eligible voters had been excluded, making their votes potentially decisive, there was real uncertainty that post-election remedies would adequately vindicate their rights, the term of office would not expire immediately (minimizing prejudice), and an expedited timetable could resolve the dispute in time to hold a properly constituted election; accordingly balance of convenience and risk of injustice favored an interlocutory injunction.
11 Sept 1997
The court held that 'has not joined the HPS' excludes anyone who has ever joined the HPS; receipt of HPS allowance in 1991 meant the applicant had joined and was therefore ineligible for HFS; although the Director initially indicated a policy-based refusal, subsequent consideration was adequate and the refusal to grant exceptional approval was not Wednesbury-unreasonable; application dismissed.