Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Certificate of entitlement scheme

Legal area

Court

30 Jun 2000

LI SHUK FAN v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

LI SHUK FAN v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2/2000

The NPCSC Interpretation of Basic Law arts.22(4) and 24(2)(3) was valid and binding and operates retrospectively to 1 July 1997; the January 1999 CFA judgments benefit only the named parties and those specifically protected by governmental undertakings; applicants did not demonstrate a clear, enforceable legitimate expectation that they would be treated as parties or that the government would freeze the law for them; the Chief Executive's Concession was permissibly and rationally interpreted by the Executive as limited to persons who had lodged a claim with the Director while physically in Ho…
30 Jun 2000

NG SIU TUNG AND OTHERS v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

NG SIU TUNG AND OTHERS v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL81/1999

The Standing Committee interpretation of arts.22(4) and 24(2)(3) was valid and applicable from 1 July 1997; the January 1999 CFA judgments did not, as a matter of law, extend to all non‑parties in the sense claimed by applicants absent express agreement or a legitimate expectation giving substantive protection; the public statements and administrative practice did not create a substantive right to be treated as parties; the Chief Executive's Concession was legitimately and rationally construed to cover persons who lodged a claim with the Director during the stated period and of which there wa…
2 Apr 1998

CHEUNG LAI WAH v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

CHEUNG LAI WAH v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV203/1997

The Court held the Immigration (Amendment) (No.3) Ordinance 1997 and its certificate-of-entitlement scheme are within the Basic Law and legitimately implement Article 22(4) (orderly, quota-based approval for entry from Mainland); however the provision in the Immigration (Amendment) (No.2) Ordinance that excludes illegitimate children of fathers from Article 24(3) entitlement is unconstitutional and invalid; the retrospective commencement of No.3 was held by a majority not to deprive persons who were physically present in Hong Kong on 1 July 1997 of their accrued right of abode (the retrospect…
2 Apr 1998

NG KA LING AND ANOTHER v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

NG KA LING AND ANOTHER v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV216/1997

The Court held the Immigration (Amendment) (No.3) Ordinance 1997 (the certificate of entitlement scheme requiring application via the Mainland BEEA and affixation to a Mainland exit travel document) is a constitutional procedure implementing Article 22(4) and is not inconsistent with the Basic Law or ICCPR as a general measure to regulate orderly settlement; the No.2 Ordinance provision that excluded illegitimate children of male Hong Kong permanent residents from Article 24(3) was unconstitutional and invalid as it unlawfully restricted the scope of Article 24(3) and violated equality princi…
2 Apr 1998

TSUI KUEN NANG v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

TSUI KUEN NANG v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV217/1997

Court held unanimously that the No.3 Ordinance (certificate of entitlement scheme and requirement to apply through mainland authorities) is a constitutionally permissible procedure implementing Articles 22(4) and 24(3); the No.2 Ordinance provision excluding illegitimate children of male permanent residents is unconstitutional and invalid as contrary to Article 24(3) and non-discrimination obligations; by majority the retrospective commencement of No.3 does not deprive persons present in Hong Kong before 1 July 1997 of their accrued right of abode (result: appellants who were physically prese…
2 Apr 1998

YEUNG NI NI v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

YEUNG NI NI v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV218/1997

The Court held unanimously that the No.3 Ordinance (the certificate of entitlement scheme) is a constitutional procedure implementing Article 22(4) and Article 24(3); the legitimacy/wedlock limitation in the No.2 Ordinance (excluding illegitimate children of fathers) is unconstitutional and invalid as contrary to Article 24(3); and, by majority, the No.3 Ordinance's retrospective operation does not deprive persons physically present in Hong Kong before 1 July 1997 of their accrued right of abode (resulting in success for appellants who were present before 1 July and dismissal for those who en…

Hong Kong Case Law

LI SHUK FAN v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

NG SIU TUNG AND OTHERS v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

CHEUNG LAI WAH v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

NG KA LING AND ANOTHER v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

TSUI KUEN NANG v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

YEUNG NI NI v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION