New Content Daily Sign Up Here

First Published March 27, 2013

The Court of Final Appeal quashed the hopes of 1,067 long stay foreign domestic helpers(“FDHs”) earlier this week when they ruled that time spent in Hong Kong as a foreign domestic helper is not ‘ordinary residence’ for the purposes of a right of abode application.

Putting the human dimension to one side for a moment, in law, the right outcome, to my mind at least, has been determined.

1. FDH’s come to Hong Kong on prescribed, limited terms of employment – they are not allowed to come with ‘settlement’ in mind.

2. If the Court had ruled otherwise, ImmD would simply have introduced an administrative mechanism (say a “maximum 3 contracts” rule) to obviate an FDH from being able to spend 7 years in Hong Kong so the entire exercise would have benefitted only one segment of the FDH community, leaving the rest out in the cold.

3. Do we REALLY want the Basic Law tinkered with by Beijing after all?

I’m glad the saga is over.

The premise in challenging the law was right but the outcome was legally inevitable.

Wikipedia have an excellent synopsis of the case.

More Stuff You May Find Useful

What can be said to constitute ‘ordinary residence’ for the purposes of a right of abode application in Hong Kong?

Strategy on how to craft an argument to appeal a refused Hong Kong right of abode application

Will I still qualify for the right of abode if I worked temporarily in Macau yet lived in Hong Kong for the full 7 years?

Do I need to work for the same employer for 7 years in order to qualify for permanent residency in Hong Kong?

Why applying for a Hong Kong FDH visa for your girlfriend is not a good idea