MY v. FT

MY v. FT

The Court had jurisdiction under s15 CACO because Hague-related proceedings had been commenced; the Mother's evidence gave reasonable grounds to believe the named relatives and close associates either held information as to the child's whereabouts or could reasonably obtain it from the Father; ex parte relief was justified by urgency and appropriate notice avenues were identified; accordingly a location order compelling specified disclosure within 24 hours and endorsing a penal notice was granted to facilitate the child's return and related proceedings.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 1407
Parties
Applicant (mother): MY; Respondent (father): FT; 1st Interested Party: Paternal Grandmother; 2nd Interested Party: Paternal Grandfather; 3rd Interested Party: Aunt; 4th Interested Party: Friend
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 May 2022
Case Number
HCMP500/2022
Procedural Posture
Child Abduction and Custody (caco / Hague Convention) / Ex Parte Application for Location Order on Originating Summons (originating Summons Filed)
Outcome
Location Order granted; four Interested Parties added for limited purpose; specified information to be provided within 24 hours; penal notice endorsed; information may be used in related proceedings.
Legal Topics
Location Order, Non Removal Order, Return of Child Under Hague Convention, Section 10 and 15 CACO, Ex Parte Relief
Source Language
EN
Family Law International Child Abduction Civil Procedure Location Order Non Removal Order Return of Child Under Hague Convention Section 10 and 15 CACO Ex Parte Relief

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 5 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MY

Applicant (mother)

FT

Respondent (father)

Paternal Grandmother

1st Interested Party

Paternal Grandfather

2nd Interested Party

Aunt

3rd Interested Party

Friend

4th Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Child Abduction and Custody (caco / Hague Convention) / Ex Parte Application for Location Order on Originating Summons (originating Summons Filed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court had jurisdiction under section 15 CACO to grant a location order
  2. 2 Whether the named persons could be joined as Interested Parties and compelled to provide information
  3. 3 Whether ex parte procedure was appropriate in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The Court had jurisdiction under s15 CACO because Hague-related proceedings had been commenced; the Mother's evidence gave reasonable grounds to believe the named relatives and close associates either held information as to the child's whereabouts or could reasonably obtain it from the Father; ex parte relief was justified by urgency and appropriate notice avenues were identified; accordingly a location order compelling specified disclosure within 24 hours and endorsing a penal notice was granted to facilitate the child's return and related proceedings.

Court Disposition

Location Order granted; four Interested Parties added for limited purpose; specified information to be provided within 24 hours; penal notice endorsed; information may be used in related proceedings.

Orders

  • The 1st to 4th Interested Parties to be added as Interested Parties for the purpose of the application, making and execution of the Location Order
  • Each of the Respondent and the 1st to 4th Interested Parties to provide within 24 hours of service information on the child's whereabouts and other circumstances relevant to locating the child including country since 16 April 2022, flight details of 16 April 2022, who the child is with, last and current addresses,...