FR v. MF

FR v. MF

The court held that the open justice principle outweighed the respondent's objection and that the anonymised judgment should be published; the respondent's reasons for non-publication were insufficient. The court ordered release of the judgment as initially redacted but permitted the respondent to propose further redactions within 10 days under PD 15.15 and JPRRO s5(1A); subject to any allowed redactions the judgment is to be published and uploaded to the Judiciary Legal Reference website and INCADAT.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 1750
Parties
Applicant: FR; Respondent: MF
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 June 2021
Case Number
HCMP532/2021
Procedural Posture
Application Under Child Abduction and Custody Ordinance (hague Convention) / Reasons for Decision on Publication of Anonymised Judgment (post Judgment)
Outcome
Respondent's objection to publication refused; judgment to be released for publication with opportunity for further redaction proposals.
Legal Topics
Hague Convention, Publication of Judgments, Anonymity and Redaction, Open Justice
Source Language
EN
Family Law International Law Child Abduction Judicial Administration Hague Convention Publication of Judgments Anonymity and Redaction Open Justice

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FR

Applicant

MF

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Child Abduction and Custody Ordinance (hague Convention) / Reasons for Decision on Publication of Anonymised Judgment (post Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an anonymised judgment in Hague Convention proceedings should be published despite the respondent's objections
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's concerns about identification of family members justified non-publication or further redaction
  3. 3 Applicability of Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Ordinance s5 and Practice Direction 15.15

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the open justice principle outweighed the respondent's objection and that the anonymised judgment should be published; the respondent's reasons for non-publication were insufficient. The court ordered release of the judgment as initially redacted but permitted the respondent to propose further redactions within 10 days under PD 15.15 and JPRRO s5(1A); subject to any allowed redactions the judgment is to be published and uploaded to the Judiciary Legal Reference website and INCADAT.

Court Disposition

Respondent's objection to publication refused; judgment to be released for publication with opportunity for further redaction proposals.

Orders

  • Respondent's objection to publication refused.
  • Judgment to be released for publication and uploaded to the Judiciary Legal Reference website subject to any further redactions permitted by the Court.