A 及另一人 對 D

A 及另一人 對 D

The court refused permission for substituted service to a Mainland address because service of the writ in the Mainland must be effected via the prescribed Mainland–HKSAR judicial arrangement and Order 11 r.5A(1) requires transmission through Mainland judicial authorities; the attempted private service by the applicants’ agent was therefore legally ineffective and substituted service by post was not justified; the applicants must therefore effect service of the writ via the Arrangement before further steps are taken.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 2151
Parties
Applicant: A; Applicant: B; Respondent: D
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 April 2026
Case Number
HCMP155/2026
Procedural Posture
Application Under Parents and Children Ordinance (cap.429) S12 for a Parents Order / Directions Hearing (mention); Interlocutory Application for Substituted Service Refused
Outcome
Application for substituted service to the Mainland address refused; applicants ordered to effect service of the writ via the Mainland–HKSAR mutual service arrangement; further documents to be dealt with after valid service is effected.
Legal Topics
Parents Order, Surrogacy, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Mainland HKSAR Mutual Service Arrangement, Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments
Source Language
CH
Family Law Civil Procedure International Service of Process Conflict of Laws Parents Order Surrogacy Service Out of Jurisdiction Mainland HKSAR Mutual Service Arrangement +1 more

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Applicant

B

Applicant

D

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Parents and Children Ordinance (cap.429) S12 for a Parents Order / Directions Hearing (mention); Interlocutory Application for Substituted Service Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether substituted service by post to a mainland address should be permitted
  2. 2 Whether in-person service in the Mainland effected by a private mainland lawyer is legally effective
  3. 3 Whether the original writ was validly served in the Mainland

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused permission for substituted service to a Mainland address because service of the writ in the Mainland must be effected via the prescribed Mainland–HKSAR judicial arrangement and Order 11 r.5A(1) requires transmission through Mainland judicial authorities; the attempted private service by the applicants’ agent was therefore legally ineffective and substituted service by post was not justified; the applicants must therefore effect service of the writ via the Arrangement before further steps are taken.

Court Disposition

Application for substituted service to the Mainland address refused; applicants ordered to effect service of the writ via the Mainland–HKSAR mutual service arrangement; further documents to be dealt with after valid service is effected.

Orders

  • Permission for substituted service by post to the Mainland address refused
  • Applicants must effect service of the writ in the Mainland via the Mainland–HKSAR mutual service arrangement (per High Court Rules O.11 r.5A(1))