13 Aug 2024
Because the applicant voluntarily withdrew his application for leave and there was nothing outstanding in the action, the Deputy High Court Judge dismissed the application, applying the authority of Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471 and the relevant provisions of Order 53.
29 Feb 2024
The leave application was dismissed because the applicant on his own motion applied to withdraw the application and there was nothing outstanding in the action, such that dismissal was the correct disposal in accordance with the Court of Appeal decision in Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471.
20 Feb 2024
Because the applicant moved to withdraw the leave application and there was nothing outstanding in the proceedings, the court applied Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471 and ordered dismissal of the application rather than leaving the action at large.
4 May 2023
The applicant unequivocally expressed willingness to withdraw the leave application by affirmation; applying the Court of Appeal authority in Re Manik, there was nothing outstanding in the action and the proper order was to dismiss the application.
6 Apr 2023
Because the applicant affirmatively withdrew her application for leave and there was nothing outstanding, the court correctly dismissed the application in accordance with the Court of Appeal authority in Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi.
9 Jan 2023
Relocation dismissed because on the holistic welfare balancing exercise the relocation was not in the children’s best interests: the father’s stated financial basis was disbelieved and he can provide for the children in Hong Kong; the relocation was motivated in part to exclude the mother; the mother is unlikely realistically to obtain US residency or reliable access; psychological and social work evidence indicated risk of harm to the children’s relationship with the mother (and to P’s emotional security); and the tangible benefits of relocation did not outweigh the significant risk of sever…
16 Aug 2004
The court held that on the facts found by the Tribunal or accepted by the parties the applicant never lost the requisite mental intention of ordinarily residing in Hong Kong; his departure was involuntary and his subsequent lawful returns and conduct evidenced continuity, so his ordinary residence continued and he acquired permanent resident status on 6 September 2000. The Director's and Tribunal's contrary decisions were legally erroneous or Wednesbury unreasonable and were quashed.
14 Jan 1986
The presiding officer was entitled to find on the evidence that the landlord had the right to land as a Chinese resident under s.8(1)(c) of the Immigration Ordinance, was permanently resident and reasonably required the premises for personal occupation; therefore the possession order was properly made and the appeal fails.
24 Aug 1978
The Court allowed the appeal because the learned judge, unaware of subsequent immigration leniency and the appellant's prospects of lawful status, would likely have passed a suspended sentence; having regard to the appellant's age, clear record, lack of participation in the actual forgery and the Immigration Department's stance, the custodial sentence was substituted by a custodial term suspended for twelve months.