V v. W

V v. W

The summons was dismissed: no psychologist was appointed because the application was framed too generally, the facts and alleged inconsistencies did not demonstrate issues requiring psychological expertise beyond the SWO’s role or the court’s fact-finding at trial; no immigration expert was allowed because the likelihood of the Mother's ability to remain in Hong Kong is a matter of Hong Kong law and administrative discretion unsuitable for expert evidence.

Citation
V v. W
Parties
Petitioner (mother): V; Respondent (father): W
Court
Family Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 October 2014
Case Number
FCMC4191/2012
Procedural Posture
Matrimonial Causes (relocation/child Custody) / Interlocutory Application for Appointment of Single Joint Experts; Pre Trial (application Heard 10 Oct 2014)
Outcome
Petitioner’s summons dismissed
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Relocation of Children, Child Custody and Care and Control, Admissibility of Expert Evidence on Domestic Law, Social Investigation Reports
Source Language
EN
Family Law Evidence Law Immigration Law Expert Evidence Relocation of Children Child Custody and Care and Control Admissibility of Expert Evidence on Domestic Law Social Investigation Reports

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

V

Petitioner (mother)

W

Respondent (father)

Procedural Posture

Matrimonial Causes (relocation/child Custody) / Interlocutory Application for Appointment of Single Joint Experts; Pre Trial (application Heard 10 Oct 2014)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a single joint psychologist should be appointed to prepare a report on the family
  2. 2 Whether a single joint immigration expert should be appointed to opine on the Mother’s ability to remain in Hong Kong
  3. 3 Whether expert evidence on matters of Hong Kong law (immigration) is admissible

Ratio Decidendi

The summons was dismissed: no psychologist was appointed because the application was framed too generally, the facts and alleged inconsistencies did not demonstrate issues requiring psychological expertise beyond the SWO’s role or the court’s fact-finding at trial; no immigration expert was allowed because the likelihood of the Mother's ability to remain in Hong Kong is a matter of Hong Kong law and administrative discretion unsuitable for expert evidence.

Court Disposition

Petitioner’s summons dismissed

Orders

  • Petitioner’s summons dismissed
  • No order as to costs (order nisi)