201920T1LAWS1010Finalized
.pdf
School
The Chinese University of Hong Kong**We aren't endorsed by this school
Course
LAWS 1010
Subject
Law
Date
Dec 16, 2024
Pages
4
Uploaded by moachi33
Page 1 of 4 The Chinese University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law Term One 2019-2020 Examination Course code and title : LAWS1010 Legal Analysis and Argumentation Release date and time : 13 January 2020, 5:00 pm Due date and time : 17 January 2020, 5:00 pm This paper has FOUR (4) pages (including this cover page). This is a TAKE HOMEexamination. Instructions to candidates: 1.This examination paper consists of TWO (2) questions. You must answer BOTH questions and ALL PARTS of each question.Each question is of equal value. 2.The minimum word requirement is 2,500 WORDS IN TOTAL. The maximum word court is 3,000 WORDS IN TOTAL. How you allocate the number of words between each of the questions is a matter for you. However, you should remember that each question attracts an equal number of marks. The word count must be indicated in your answer paper. 3.Answers must be typed using a computer and in English. 4.Your answer paper must show your student ID on the front page. Do not make any reference to your name in your answer paper. 5.You may not discuss or collaborate with another person when completing this examination. You may consult any other sources in preparing your final paper. Sources are not restricted to those discussed in class. 6.Your answers must be your own work. When you use sources, cite them adequately for identification. You are expected to know and abide by the University’s plagiarism policy. Copying another person’s work or using language or ideas without proper attribution is subject to disciplinary action, as appropriate, and can lead to yourfailure of the course. 7.Your answer paper must be submitted to the CUHK VeriGuide system (“VeriGuide”) at http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/veriguide and an academic honesty declaration form must be generated by VeriGuide ( “VeriGuide Slip”). 8.Submit your answer paper in PDF format together with the VeriGuide Slip from your own CUHK student email accountto culaw.takehomeexam@link.cuhk.edu.hk before the deadline. Please indicate the course code and title in the subject line of your submission email. The attachment file name of your answer paper should be: LAWS1010_[your 10-digit USID]_Answer (e.g., LAWS1010_1234567890_Answer); and the attachment file name of your VeriGuide Slip should be: LAWS1010_[your 10-digit USID]_VeriGuide (e.g., LAWS1010_1234567890_VeriGuide). 9.By submitting the VeriGuide Slip, you are deemed to have made the academic honesty declaration included in the VeriGuide Slip. A failure to submit the VeriGuide Slip by the deadline is regarded as an instance of late submission. 10.If the answer paper and the VeriGuide Slip are submitted late but within the first 60 minutes after the deadline, the grade for the take-home paper will be capped at C. 11.If the answer paper and the VeriGuide Slip are submitted late but within two working days after the deadline, the grade for the take-home paper will be capped at D. 12.If the answer paper and the VeriGuide Slip are submitted late for more than two working days after the deadline, the take-home paper will receive a mark of zero and a grade of F.
Page 2 of 4 LAWS1010 Legal Analysis and Argumentation Term One 2019/20 QUESTION 1 (50 marks) Find and then read the judgments of the Court of Final Appeal in QT v Director of Immigration[2018] 4 HKC 403 and Leung Chun Kwong v Secretary for Civil Service[2019] 4 HKC 281. You have just been appointed as a part-time judge of the (fictitious) Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“AAT”) of the Hong Kong SAR. All proceedings before the AAT are in writing and decisions are made by the AAT judges based only on their consideration of the papers in appeal cases. The AAT manager has just brought you three cases in which appellants are appealing against decisions of government officials. The cases and the relevant government decisions are summarised below. You must write decisions of the AAT in each of the three appeals, giving reasons why you are allowing or refusing the appeals. Appeal Case 1: Ms. Dominique De Belfort & Mr. Tom Obunyah Ms. De Belfort is a French citizen who has been offered a position as a financial analyst in the Hong Kong office of an international bank, Societe Particulier. Ms. De Belfort has lived in Paris with her boyfriend Tom Obunyah, who is a citizen of Ghana, for three years. Six months ago they went through a ceremony of civil partnership which is treated by French law as the equivalent of marriage. When Ms. De Belfort and Mr. Obunyah applied to the Immigration Department of the Hong Kong SAR government for immigration visas, Ms. De Belfort was granted a visa to live and work in Hong Kong but Mr. Obunyah was refused a visa as her dependant. The Immigration Department refused the application for a dependant’s visa for Mr. Obunyah, stating that he was not Ms. De Belfort’s spouse according to Hong Kong law. Ms. De Belfort and Mr. Obunyah appeal the Immigration Department’s decision to the AAT on the ground that they are a genuine couple in a recognised civil partnership. Appeal Case 2: Ms. Aleeza al-Tehrani Ms. Al-Tehrani is a citizen of India, as is her long-term boyfriend, Jaswinder. Ms. Al-Tehrani is a Muslim and Jaswinder is a Hindu. Ms. Al-Tehrani has just started a new job as a lecturer in international law at the Kowloon University. Ms. Al-Tehrani applied for and obtained an immigration visa from the Immigration Department to live and work in Hong Kong. Jaswinder applied for a dependant’s visa. In the documents supporting Jaswinder’s application, Ms. Al-Tehrani explained that it was not possible for Jaswinder and her to marry because of “religious-cultural reasons”. The Immigration Department refused Jaswinder’s application for a dependant’s visa on the ground that he is not married to Ms. Al Tehrani. The refusal letter from the Immigration Department states that “there is no legal bar on marriage under the relevant laws in India”.
Page 3 of 4 LAWS1010 Legal Analysis and Argumentation Term One 2019/20 Ms. Al Tehrani now appeals the decision of the Immigration Department refusing Jaswinder a dependant’s visa. In her appeal form, she states that the reason why she and Jaswinder cannot marry is because of deep, cultural barriers to inter-faith marriage in the part of India that they come from. She says that if they got married, they would be outcasts from their respective families and even their lives may be in danger. Appeal Case 3: Larry and Barry Ho Larry Ho and Barry Ho (originally Jenkins) are both males. Larry is a permanent resident of Hong Kong who lived in New Zealand for 5 years between 2012 and 2017. While in New Zealand, he met Barry, who is a citizen of the UK. In 2017, they got married to each other under New Zealand law, which allows same sex couples to marry. After they were married, they decided to live in Hong Kong. A few weeks after they arrived in Hong Kong, Larry obtained a job as a charity worker. Barry was eventually granted a dependant visa, pursuant to the Court of Final Appeal decision in QT, but he has not been able to find a job in Hong Kong. Larry and Barry applied to the Hong Kong government for public housing, seeking an apartment which is large enough for them both to live in as a married couple. The Housing Department has refused the application for public housing, stating that “priority in allocation of public housing will be given to married couples whose marriages are lawful in Hong Kong…and same sex marriage is not lawful in Hong Kong”. Larry and Barry appeal the decision of the Housing Department to the AAT, arguing that their fundamental human rights have been breached.
Page 4 of 4 LAWS1010 Legal Analysis and Argumentation Term One 2019/20 QUESTION 2 Find and read the TWO following case reports then complete the accompanying tasks: MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd v Rock Advertising [2016] EWCA Civ 553; MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd v Rock Advertising [2018] UKSC 24. Tasks: 1. Explain the ratio decidendiof the Court of Appeal’s decision in the case. (10 marks) 2. Write a brief case note for the Court of Appeal decision. (15 marks) 3. Explain the ratio decidendiof the Supreme Court’s decision in the case, explaining, in particular, how it differs from that of the Court of Appeal. (10 marks) 4. Write a brief case not for the Supreme Court’s decision. (15 marks) *** LAST PAGE *** *** END OF EXAMINATION PAPER ***