DOMINGO DANIEL L v. COMMISSIONER OF REGISTRATION AND ANOTHER

CACV 261/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 261 OF 2011

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 128/2010)

____________

BETWEEN

	DOMINGO DANIEL L	Applicant (Respondent)
	and
	COMMISSIONER OF REGISTRATION	1st Respondent (Appellant)
	REGISTRATION OF PERSONS TRIBUNAL	2nd Respondent

____________

Before: Hon Cheung CJHC, Tang VP and Stock VP in Court

Date of Hearing: 19 July 2012

Date of Judgment: 19 July 2012

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

 

Hon Cheung CJHC (giving the judgment of the court):

1.  This appeal from Lam J’s judgment dated 3 November 2011 raises the question of whether section 2(4)(a)(vi) of the Immigration Ordinance (Cap 115) is inconsistent with article 24(2)(4) of the Basic Law and is therefore unconstitutional. That question has already been decided in the negative by this court in CACV 204/2011: Vallejos v Commissioner of Registration [2012] 2 HKC 185. The parties are agreed that subject to the question of further appeal, that decision of this court effectively disposes of the present appeal.

2.  We agree.  Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, we allow this appeal in terms of the consent summons dated 17 July 2012.

3.  This court has already given leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal in CACV 204/2011 on the “great, general or public importance” ground in relation to the issue described at the beginning of this judgment.  We agree with the parties that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on the same question should also be given in the present case. We so order.

4.  We further order that the costs of the application for leave to appeal shall be in the cause of the intended appeal, and that there be legal aid taxation of the applicant’s own costs.

(Andrew Cheung) Chief Judge of the High Court

(Robert Tang) Vice President

(Frank Stock) Vice President

Attendance of the applicant (respondent), represented by Barnes & Daly, was excused

Attendance of the 1^st respondent (appellant), represented by the Department of Justice, was excused

Attendance of the 2^nd respondent, unrepresented, was excused

Please refer to FACV20/2012 for the relevant appeal(s) to the Court of Final Appeal.