File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Vallejos Evangeline B. v Commissioner of Registration: why foreign domestic helpers do not have the right of abode

TitleVallejos Evangeline B. v Commissioner of Registration: why foreign domestic helpers do not have the right of abode
Authors
Issue Date2011
PublisherSweet & Maxwell Asia. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.hku.hk/law/hklj/
Citation
Hong Kong Law Journal, 2011, v. 41 n. 3, p. 611-619 How to Cite?
AbstractIn deciding whether a foreign domestic helper could acquire the right of abode, (1) the Court of First Instance (CFI) was right to have rejected any reliance on an Immigration Department booklet published in April 1997 as it lacked any probative value in discerning the Sino-British understanding of the term “ordinarily resided” under Art 24(2)(4) of the Basic Law; (2) however, the CFI had misapplied the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) precedent in Chong Fung Yuen when rejecting the 1996 Opinions of the Preparatory Committee in its interpretation of Art 24(2)(4); and (3) the CFI wrongly assumed that, in deciding what constitutes “ordinary residence”, the CFA in Prem Singh had merely required one’s residence to be adopted voluntarily and for a settled purpose.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/152686
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 0.215
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.101

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorYap, PJen_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-07-16T09:46:22Z-
dc.date.available2012-07-16T09:46:22Z-
dc.date.issued2011en_US
dc.identifier.citationHong Kong Law Journal, 2011, v. 41 n. 3, p. 611-619en_US
dc.identifier.issn0378-0600-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/152686-
dc.description.abstractIn deciding whether a foreign domestic helper could acquire the right of abode, (1) the Court of First Instance (CFI) was right to have rejected any reliance on an Immigration Department booklet published in April 1997 as it lacked any probative value in discerning the Sino-British understanding of the term “ordinarily resided” under Art 24(2)(4) of the Basic Law; (2) however, the CFI had misapplied the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) precedent in Chong Fung Yuen when rejecting the 1996 Opinions of the Preparatory Committee in its interpretation of Art 24(2)(4); and (3) the CFI wrongly assumed that, in deciding what constitutes “ordinary residence”, the CFA in Prem Singh had merely required one’s residence to be adopted voluntarily and for a settled purpose.-
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherSweet & Maxwell Asia. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.hku.hk/law/hklj/-
dc.relation.ispartofHong Kong Law Journalen_US
dc.rightsCreative Commons: Attribution 3.0 Hong Kong License-
dc.titleVallejos Evangeline B. v Commissioner of Registration: why foreign domestic helpers do not have the right of abodeen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.emailYap, PJ: pjyap@hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.authorityYap, PJ=rp01274en_US
dc.description.naturepublished_or_final_version-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-84858400589-
dc.identifier.hkuros200957en_US
dc.identifier.volume41-
dc.identifier.issue3-
dc.identifier.spage611en_US
dc.identifier.epage619en_US
dc.publisher.placeHong Kong-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats