The Hong Kong government has won its appeal against a lower court ruling, in a case that Hong Kong leaders feared would lead to a mass migration of foreign domestic helpers and their families seeking permanent residency status in the metropolis.

The case emerged from a judicial review in the High Court of Hong Kong that granted permanent right of abode to a Filipino domestic helper. The appeal hinged on the interpretation of the term "ordinarily resident in Hong Kong", since the petitioner in the case had worked in Hong Kong for two decades.

Ambrose Lee Siu-kwong, secretary for security, welcomed the judgment. He said the Immigration Department will continue to withhold processing of right of abode applications submitted by foreign domestic helpers. The government will not change the existing arrangements for the entry and employment of such helpers, he added.

Spokespersons for two groups are in support of the right of abode for foreign domestic helpers.

Eni Lestari, of the Asian Migrants' Coordinating Bodies, and Dolores Balladares, representing United Filipinos in Hong Kong, said they were "very disappointed" with the decision by the Hong Kong Court of Appeal.

"What is the difference between other expatriates and us? We also have lived in Hong Kong for more than seven years, we also work very hard. It is discrimination," said Lestari.

Chief Justice Andrew Cheung Kui-nung, together with Vice-President Justice Frank Stock and Vice-President Justice Robert Tang Ching said in passing judgment that it is not unconstitutional for the government to rely on the legislature to exclude certain groups from the right of abode.

Wednesday's decision came in contrast to the ruling by Justice Lam Man-hon of the Court of First Instance, who judged that the exclusionary provisions of the Immigration Ordinance were inconsistent with the Basic Law.

Article 24 of the Basic Law specifies that non-Chinese who apply for permanent residency must "ordinarily reside" in Hong Kong for seven years or more. The appeal court judges noted that the Basic Law makes no stipulation about the meaning of the term "ordinarily reside".

Stock said that any constitution under Common Law has always been amenable to legislative definition and exception and also responds to changing societal demands.

Addressing this point, Cheung said the government retains the right to "define, refine, elaborate and adapt the expression to meet changing political, economic and social needs" via the legislature. In this instance, that right may refer to foreign domestic helpers in Hong Kong, under the Immigration Ordinance.

Cheung stressed that so long as the ordinance does not encroach on the central characteristics of "ordinarily resident", it is not unconstitutional.

To identify who is and who is not "ordinarily resident", Cheung referred to two similar court cases, and decided the meaning should be viewed from the perspective of society at large, giving that view precedence over an individual's subjective purpose or intention.

Cheung gave examples of Vietnamese refugees, who may intend to settle after arriving in Hong Kong. But the refugees were approved for entry to Hong Kong with a special and limited purpose from the perspective of Hong Kong society.

Counsel for Evangeline Banao Vallejos, the Filipino domestic helper who has lived in Hong Kong for more than two decades, said the plaintiff may appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

Secretary Lee said the government expected that, and the administration will not take further action before the appeal is granted leave.