CHT v. FD

CHT v. FD

The petitioner failed to prove a substantial connection with Hong Kong at the date of the petition because the evidence was limited and uncorroborated (no travel records, no evidence of ongoing residence or work ties), his decisive resignation and continuous residence and employment in Mainland China for 12 years outweighed the asserted Hong Kong links, and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction under s.3(c) Cap.179 and refused leave to amend; the petition was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Citation
CHT v. FD
Parties
Petitioner: CHT; Respondent: FD
Court
Family Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 October 2016
Case Number
FCMC10167/2015
Procedural Posture
Matrimonial Causes (divorce) / Decision on Jurisdiction and Application for Leave to Amend (substantial Connection)
Outcome
Petition dismissed for want of jurisdiction; summons for leave to amend dismissed; no order as to costs; marriage certificate released to petitioner; costs order nisi to become absolute unless varied within 14 days
Legal Topics
Substantial Connection, Domicile, Habitual Residence, Leave to Amend, Divorce Jurisdiction
Source Language
EN
Family Law Jurisdiction Private International Law Substantial Connection Domicile Habitual Residence Leave to Amend Divorce Jurisdiction

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHT

Petitioner

FD

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Matrimonial Causes (divorce) / Decision on Jurisdiction and Application for Leave to Amend (substantial Connection)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petitioner had a substantial connection with Hong Kong under section 3(c) of the Matrimonial Causes Ordinance (Cap.179) at the date of the petition
  2. 2 Whether leave should be granted to amend the petition to rely on substantial connection
  3. 3 Whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear the divorce petition

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioner failed to prove a substantial connection with Hong Kong at the date of the petition because the evidence was limited and uncorroborated (no travel records, no evidence of ongoing residence or work ties), his decisive resignation and continuous residence and employment in Mainland China for 12 years outweighed the asserted Hong Kong links, and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction under s.3(c) Cap.179 and refused leave to amend; the petition was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed for want of jurisdiction; summons for leave to amend dismissed; no order as to costs; marriage certificate released to petitioner; costs order nisi to become absolute unless varied within 14 days

Orders

  • The Petitioner\'s Petition dated 7 August 2015 is dismissed for want of jurisdiction
  • The Petitioner\'s Summons dated 4 February 2016 for leave to amend the Petition is dismissed