File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
  • Find via Find It@HKUL
Supplementary

Article: Spouses without Benefits: 'Ring-Fencing' Marriage after W and QT Have Unbolted Its Gates? 

TitleSpouses without Benefits: 'Ring-Fencing' Marriage after W and QT Have Unbolted Its Gates? 
Authors
Issue Date2018
PublisherSweet & Maxwell Asia. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.hku.hk/law/hklj/
Citation
Hong Kong Law Journal, 2018, v. 48 n. 2, p. 365-374 How to Cite?
AbstractIn “ring-fencing” all putative benefits closely connected to heterosexual marriage, the Court of Appeal (CA) in Leung Chun Kwong v Secretary for the Civil Service rewrote art 37 of the Basic Law (BL), which according to the CA now provides that the traditional conception of marriage is “guaranteed by the Basic Law” and its “traditional, historical, social, moral or religious background and values [are] embedded in article 37 of the Basic Law”. In doing so, the CA has completely ignored the sole precedent of Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (CFA) on art 37 of the BL — W v Registrar of Marriages. Remarkably, Leung is even inconsistent with the CA’s own decision in QT v Director of Immigration, and it is now even less defensible after the CFA’s latest word in QT.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/272907
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 0.3
2020 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.112
SSRN

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorYap, PJ-
dc.date.accessioned2019-08-06T09:18:50Z-
dc.date.available2019-08-06T09:18:50Z-
dc.date.issued2018-
dc.identifier.citationHong Kong Law Journal, 2018, v. 48 n. 2, p. 365-374-
dc.identifier.issn0378-0600-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/272907-
dc.description.abstractIn “ring-fencing” all putative benefits closely connected to heterosexual marriage, the Court of Appeal (CA) in Leung Chun Kwong v Secretary for the Civil Service rewrote art 37 of the Basic Law (BL), which according to the CA now provides that the traditional conception of marriage is “guaranteed by the Basic Law” and its “traditional, historical, social, moral or religious background and values [are] embedded in article 37 of the Basic Law”. In doing so, the CA has completely ignored the sole precedent of Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (CFA) on art 37 of the BL — W v Registrar of Marriages. Remarkably, Leung is even inconsistent with the CA’s own decision in QT v Director of Immigration, and it is now even less defensible after the CFA’s latest word in QT.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherSweet & Maxwell Asia. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.hku.hk/law/hklj/-
dc.relation.ispartofHong Kong Law Journal-
dc.titleSpouses without Benefits: 'Ring-Fencing' Marriage after W and QT Have Unbolted Its Gates? -
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.emailYap, PJ: pjyap@hkucc.hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityYap, PJ=rp01274-
dc.identifier.hkuros300726-
dc.identifier.volume48-
dc.identifier.issue2-
dc.identifier.spage365-
dc.identifier.epage374-
dc.publisher.placeHong Kong-
dc.identifier.ssrn3253450-
dc.identifier.issnl0378-0600-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats