Hong Kong Judgment

Court of First Instance

D v. W

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court made interim residence and access orders because, on balance, separating the parents for the short interim period and regulating access would best protect the children's welfare; the orders struck a balance between minimizing disruption and ensuring substantial contact with the mother, subject to parties' undertakings and practical exceptions.

Court disposition

Interim orders made regulating residence and access of the three wards between 24 May and 10 June 2002 and undertakings accepted from the parties.

Orders

  • Between 24 May and 10 June 2002 the two younger daughters shall reside with the father at Broadview Villa subject to the mother's access on Monday, Wednesday and Friday between 09:00 and 11:00.
  • The mother shall have staying access of the two younger daughters from every Friday to Monday: pick up at 10:00 every Friday and return at 18:00 every Monday, staying access to commence 31 May 2002; visiting access on 25 May 2002 from 10:00 to 18:00.
  • Ruby shall continue to reside with the mother at Robinson Place; the father shall have access on Sunday 10:00 to 18:00 and after school on Tuesday and Thursday to 19:00.
  • The father undertook not to go to Robinson Place and the mother undertook not to return to Broadview Villa for the interim period, subject to the exception that they may attend the other's residence for the purpose of picking up or returning the wards for access.

02

Material facts

Parties

D

Petitioner Counsel: Mr Neal Clough

W

Respondent Counsel: Mrs Casewell

Amounts and remedies

  • Number of Children: 3
  • Interim Period Days: 18

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Wardship (interim Child Arrangements) / Interim

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Applicant sought court regulation of interim residence and access to protect the children and proposed arrangements that would separate the parents short term while preserving contact with the mother.
Respondent
Respondent argued against unnecessary disruption to the children's routine and disputed assertions about primary carer status; raised concerns about the father's capacity and the effect of the maid's departure on childcare.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Common law welfare jurisdiction of the court

    Best interests of the child (welfare principle)

  2. 02

    Inherent jurisdiction of the High Court

    Court's power to make interim orders to regulate parents' conduct for protection of wards

  3. 03

    Practice and procedure of family proceedings

    Undertakings given to court are enforceable subject to exceptions for exercise of access rights

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court made interim residence and access orders because, on balance, separating the parents for the short interim period and regulating access would best protect the children's welfare; the orders struck a balance between minimizing disruption and ensuring substantial contact with the mother, subject to parties' undertakings and practical exceptions.

Obiter and limits

  • A degree of disruption was inevitable but could and should be minimised
  • The parties' undertakings not to attend each other's residences are subject to the exception of attending to pick up or return children for access

Court disposition

Interim orders made regulating residence and access of the three wards between 24 May and 10 June 2002 and undertakings accepted from the parties.

  • Between 24 May and 10 June 2002 the two younger daughters shall reside with the father at Broadview Villa subject to the mother's access on Monday, Wednesday and Friday between 09:00 and 11:00.
  • The mother shall have staying access of the two younger daughters from every Friday to Monday: pick up at 10:00 every Friday and return at 18:00 every Monday, staying access to commence 31 May 2002; visiting access on 25 May 2002 from 10:00 to 18:00.
  • Ruby shall continue to reside with the mother at Robinson Place; the father shall have access on Sunday 10:00 to 18:00 and after school on Tuesday and Thursday to 19:00.
  • The father undertook not to go to Robinson Place and the mother undertook not to return to Broadview Villa for the interim period, subject to the exception that they may attend the other's residence for the purpose of picking up or returning the wards for access.

Source and reliance status

Court of First Instance · 24 May 2002

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Court of First Instance

Judgment· 24 May 2002

D v. W

bjbj HCMP 1953/2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 1953 OF 2002 ____

BETWEEN D Petitioner and W Respondent ____ Before: Deputy High Court Judge Lam in Chambers Date of Hearing: 24 May 2002 Date of Ruling: 24 May 2002 ____

R U L I N G ____ This is my ruling regarding interim arrangement for the wards between 24 May and 10 June 2002. I consider that it is in the best interest of the children that the mother and the father should live apart at least for a short duration. Hence, in respect of the interim arrangement between now and 10 June 2002, I will strive to achieve that if I could. This is in fact recognised by the father and he undertakes to this court that he would not go to Robinson Place. The mother is also willing to give an undertaking to this court that she would not return to Broadview Villa between now and 10 June 2002. However the parties cannot agree with each other as to the interim arrangement for the children. I have to decide that in the light of the information available. I do not think it is right for me to make no order today. Given the acrimonious state of affairs between the parties, unless there is an order to regulate them, I believe that they would act in ways inconsistent with the interest of the children. I bear in mind what Mrs Casewell submitted to me regarding the risk of upsetting the routine of the children if they were moved to a new residence. That is certainly an important consideration regarding young children. However, I am of the view that their environments would be changed in any event. The mother would not be living with them (although the father

alleges that they are used to that). The maid would be going away. I also bear in mind that the wards are young children and they should be allowed to maintain substantial contacts with their mother. Although the father said he has been the primary carer for the children, this is disputed by the mother. Further, the departure of the maid may create difficulties in terms of child care provided by the father on his own. There are allegation of excessive drinking against the father. I understand the father is disputing that. The mother undertakes that she would continue to observe the routine of the 2 younger daughters if they stay with her. In my judgment, this is a case where a certain degree of disruption is inevitable but I think I can minimise the same. On balance, I think the best arrangements regarding the two younger daughters would be as follows: (1) subject to (2) below, between 24 May to 10 June, they would reside with the father at Broadview Villa, during which the mother would have access on Monday, Wednesday and Friday between 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.. (2) the mother shall have staying access of the 2 daughters from every Friday to Monday. The mother could pick them up at 10:00 a.m. every Friday and return them at 6:00 p.m. every Monday. Staying access of mother would start from 31 May 2002. The mother shall have visiting access on 25 May 2002 between 10:00 a.m. and

6:00 p.m. As to Ruby, there is no serious disagreement. I order that she shall continue to reside with the mother at Robinson Place, with access to the father as follows: on Sunday between 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. after school on Tuesday and Thursday to 7:00 p.m. Lastly, I would record that the undertakings given by the parties are subject to the obvious exception that they could go to the other s residence for picking up and returning the wards for the exercise of their rights of access. (M H Lam) Deputy High Court Judge Mr Neal Clough, instructed by Messrs Tsang, Chan & Woo, for the Plaintiff Mrs Casewell, of Messrs Boase, Cohen & Collins, for the Defendant -

PAGE - & 6" HCPI No Alice LH Yu HCMP.dot setup Microsoft Word 9.0 HCPI No Title Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.