法律援助署五十周年紀念特刊 | Legal Aid Department 50th Anniversary Commemorative Publication

公務員爭取同性伴侶福利權 Civil servant fighting for right to same-sex spousal benefits 上訴人：梁鎮罡 Appellant: Leung Chun Kwong 答辯人：公務員事務局局長（福利決定）｜稅務局局長（稅務決定） Respondents: Secretary for the Civil Service (Benefits Decision) | Commissioner of Inland Revenue (Tax Decision) 終審法院最終判決日期：2019年6月6日 Date of Court of Final Appeal Judgment: 6 June 2019 類別：民事－人權 Category: Civil – Human Rights 個案重溫 Case Study Court of First Instance and Court of Appeal Judgments ． Benefits Decision unlawfully discriminated against the Appellant based on his sexual orientation. ． Tax Decision was correct on the proper construction of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap. 112). ． The Court of First Instance held in favour of the Appellant on Benefits Decision but against the Appellant on Tax Decision. ． The Respondent appealed against the Benefits Decision and the Appellant cross-appealed against the Tax Decision. The Court of Appeal allowed the Respondent’s appeal and dismissed the Appellant’s cross appeal. 原訟法庭及上訴法庭的判決 ． 福利決定是基於上訴人的性傾向而作出，這對上訴 人構成不合法的歧視。 ． 稅務決定是基於《稅務條例》（第112章）的恰當解 釋而作出，屬正確無誤。 ． 原訟法庭裁定上訴人就福利決定提出的司法覆核申請 得直，但就稅務決定提出的司法覆核申請則被駁回。 ． 答辯人就福利決定提出上訴，而上訴人則就稅務決定提 出交相上訴，上訴庭裁定答辯人上訴得直，同時駁回上 訴人的交相上訴。 Respondents’Argument 答辯人理據 ． 根據《稅務條例》，婚姻指一男一女締結的異性婚 姻，因此上訴人的婚姻並無效力。 Marriage refers to a heterosexual marriage between a man and a woman in the context of the Inland Revenue Ordinance; therefore the Appellant’s marriage was invalid. ． Appellant’s Argument 上訴人理據 ． 公務員事務局局長和稅務局局長基於上訴人的性傾 向作出的福利決定及稅務決定，對上訴人構成不合 法的歧視。 Benefits and Tax Decisions unlawfully discriminated against him on the ground of his sexual orientation. ． 相關爭議 ． 上訴人為入境事務主任，於2014年與同性伴侶於新 西蘭結婚，並獲得當地的結婚證書。 ． 上訴人請求更新婚姻狀況，希望其同性配偶也可取 得醫療及牙科福利－福利決定。 ． 上訴人請求與同性配偶合併評稅－稅務決定。 ． 答辯人認為上訴人的婚姻在香港法制下並無效力。 Dispute The Appellant, an immigration officer, and his same sex partner married in New Zealand and obtained a New Zealand marriage certificate in 2014. The Appellant sought to update marital status to extend his medical and dental benefits to spouse – Benefits Decision. TheAppellant sought to include spouse for joint tax assessment – Tax Decision. The Respondents concluded that the Appellant’s marriage was invalid under The Hong Kong law. 終審法院民事上訴 2018 年第 8 號 FACV No. 8 of 2018 [ 2019 ] HKCFA 19 P.82 法治基石、彰顯公義 Legal Aid for the Rule of Law and Justice