Ng Ka Ling v Director of Immigration

Ng Ka Ling v. Director of Immigration
Judiciary of Hong Kong
Court	Court of Final Appeal
Full case name	Ng Ka Ling v. Director of Immigration
Decided	29 January 1999
Citation	[1999] 2 HKCFAR 4
Transcript	text
Case history
Prior actions	Ng Ka Ling v. Director of Immigration, CACV 216/1997 Ng Ka Ling v. Director of Immigration, CACV 217/1997
Court membership
Judges sitting	Chief Justice Andrew Li; permanent judges Henry Litton, Charles Ching and Kemal Bokhary; non-permanent judge Anthony Mason
Case opinions
Decision by	Chief Justice Andrew Li

Ng Ka Ling v. Director of Immigration (No 2)
Judiciary of Hong Kong
Court	Court of Final Appeal
Full case name	Ng Ka Ling v. Director of Immigration (No 2)
Decided	26 February 1999
Citation	[1999] 2 HKCFAR 141
Transcript	text
Case history
Prior actions	Ng Ka Ling v. Director of Immigration, FACV 14/1997
Court membership
Judges sitting	Chief Justice Andrew Li; permanent judges Henry Litton, Charles Ching and Kemal Bokhary; non-permanent judge Anthony Mason
Case opinions
Decision by	Chief Justice Andrew Li

Ng Ka Ling v Director of Immigration was a joint appeal of three cases decided in 1999 by Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal (CFA). Chief Justice Andrew Li, in the Court's unanimous opinion, held that mainland-born children of Hong Kong permanent residents enjoyed the right of abode, regardless of whether one of their parents had acquired Hong Kong permanent residency at the time of birth of the children.^[1]

The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal held that it had jurisdiction to review the consistency of legislation or acts of the National People's Congress (NPC) or the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) of the People's Republic of China with the Hong Kong Basic Law, and if legislations or acts of the executive were found to be inconsistent, the jurisdiction to hold NPC or NPCSC acts invalid. The CFA judgment sparked serious controversy concerning the relationship between the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) and the Central People's Government of China.

In an unprecedented move, the CFA issued a clarification under Ng Ka Ling v Director of Immigration (No 2) one month after the final appeal decision. The CFA clarified that it cannot question the authority of the NPCSC to do any act in accordance with provisions of the Basic Law and procedure therein.^[2]