Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Live-in requirement

Legal area

Court

21 Sept 2020

LUBIANO NANCY ALMORIN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2020] HKCA 782
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV112/2018

Appeal dismissed: ICESCR article 7(b) and (d) have not been domesticated by conscious legislative implementation in the Employment Ordinance; the applicant's heightened‑risk theory is precluded by the Immigration Reservation and the ICESCR article 6 reservation and, in any event, the heightened‑risk approach is not an applicable general ground of review absent clear evidence of a significant inherent risk causally linked to the impugned immigration policy; no sufficient evidence showed the Live‑In Requirement materially increases the risk of denial of statutory rest days and s.17 EO affords t…
14 Jun 2019

LUBIANO NANCY ALMORIN v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1539
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL210/2016

A Form 86 is not a 'pleading' under the Rules of the High Court; therefore an order refusing to amend a Form 86 is not within Order 59 r21(2)(i). The Order was a procedural, interlocutory order and did not determine substantive rights within Order 59 r21(1)(a); accordingly leave to appeal was required and the application for extension of time and leave was dismissed for lack of reasonable prospect of success, unexplained delay and lack of necessity to the grounds of appeal.
11 Jul 2018

RANKOTHPEDI DURAYALAGE KAMALAWATHI v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1579
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL425/2017

The court granted a stay pending final determination of CACV 112 of 2018 because the appeal will authoritatively determine the principal constitutional/human rights ground, there is a very high degree of overlap between the cases, the Applicant will not suffer substantial prejudice from a temporary stay, and continuing would waste public funds and court resources; therefore the stay is a justified exercise of case management powers.
14 Feb 2018

LUBIANO NANCY ALMORIN v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 331
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL210/2016

The Live‑In Requirement is lawful and sustainable: it is either a permissible condition of stay or lawfully implemented by contractual undertakings and eligibility criteria; the Applicant failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the requirement unacceptably or significantly increases the risk of servitude, forced labour or denial of statutory rest days; the requirement is not discriminatory because FDHs admitted under the FDH Scheme are not in analogous positions to SL Scheme workers; and the Director has not irrationally fettered his discretion. Accordingly the judicial review is…
12 Jan 2009

CHAN WING YIU v. HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

Citation

CHAN WING YIU v. HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC60/2008

The court refused leave because the magistrate's finding that the applicant knew he was no longer entitled to the subsidy and acted dishonestly was supported by evidence (including regular signed receipts and continued receipt of payments), the conviction was not perverse, and there was no denial of a fair trial.

Hong Kong Case Law

LUBIANO NANCY ALMORIN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

LUBIANO NANCY ALMORIN v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

RANKOTHPEDI DURAYALAGE KAMALAWATHI v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

LUBIANO NANCY ALMORIN v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

CHAN WING YIU v. HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION