HKW v. YYC
- Citation
- [2024] HKFC 143
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Family Court
- Decision
- 1 August 2024
- Posture
- Matrimonial Causes / Family Law / Application for Leave to Appeal (paper Disposal)
- Case number
- FCMC3123/2021
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Family Court
- Decision
- 1 August 2024
- Posture
- Matrimonial Causes / Family Law / Application for Leave to Appeal (paper Disposal)
- Case number
- FCMC3123/2021
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Petitioner failed to show a reasonable prospect of success under s63A(2) because the access orders were conditioned to require respondent to be off duty or on leave and assisted by his mother or helper, the court is not bound by the SWO recommendations and retained discretion to make the access and supervision orders in the child's best interests; therefore leave to appeal and the stay were refused and costs were awarded to the respondent.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; summons for stay of execution dismissed; costs awarded to Respondent and to be taxed if not agreed; supervision order of 12 months to remain for monitoring.
Orders
- Leave to appeal refused and application dismissed (summons dated 6 February 2024 dismissed)
- Stay of execution refused
- Supervision order for 12 months to continue and progress report to be filed one month before expiry
- Parties to jointly appoint a parenting co-ordinator with costs shared equally in accordance with order of 21 July 2021
- Respondent to be provided with petitioner's roster changes if his work schedule changes
- Costs of this application to be paid by Petitioner to Respondent, to be taxed if not agreed
- Respondent's legal aid costs to be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations
02
Material facts
Parties
HKW
Petitioner Counsel: Ms Bridget Leung instructed by CL & Co. SolicitorsYYC
Respondent Counsel: Mr Shaphan Marwah instructed by Mike So, Joseph Lau & Co.Amounts and remedies
- Supervision Order Months: 12
03
Procedural history
Posture
Matrimonial Causes / Family Law / Application for Leave to Appeal (paper Disposal)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable prospect of success for leave to appeal under s63A(2) of the District Court Ordinance
- 02
Whether the defined access arrangement imposes excessive caring responsibility on the respondent contrary to the child's best interests
- 03
Whether the court is bound by Social Welfare Officer (SWO) recommendations in the SIR
- 04
Whether a supervision order for monitoring is appropriate
- 05
Whether stay of execution should be granted pending appeal
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Petitioner (HKW/M) argued the defined access arrangement places excessive caring time and responsibility on the respondent and is contrary to the best interests of the child; complained that parts of the access order depart from the SWO recommendations without justification; sought leave to appeal and a stay of execution.
- Respondent
- Respondent (YYC/F) opposed leave, submitted access is conditioned on him being off duty or on leave and assisted by his mother or a domestic helper, that the court is not bound by SWO recommendations, that a 12-month supervision order is necessary for monitoring, and opposed stay; initially acted in person then was represented by counsel.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 63A(2) District Court Ordinance
Leave to appeal granted only if intended appeal has a reasonable prospect of success or there are other reasons in the interests of justice
- 02
KNM v. HTF, HCMP No.288/2011 per Hartmann JA
A reasonable prospect of success must be more than fanciful but need not be probable
- 03
Established family law principle as applied in the judgment
Family judge has unfettered discretion to order access/visitation in the best interests of the child and is not bound by SWO recommendations
- 04
Judicial practice in family proceedings mentioned in judgment
Supervision orders enable SWO monitoring where necessary due to parental work schedules or caregiving arrangements
- 05
Judgment order and Legal Aid Regulations
Costs follow the event unless the court orders otherwise; legal aid costs taxed under Legal Aid Regulations
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Petitioner failed to show a reasonable prospect of success under s63A(2) because the access orders were conditioned to require respondent to be off duty or on leave and assisted by his mother or helper, the court is not bound by the SWO recommendations and retained discretion to make the access and supervision orders in the child's best interests; therefore leave to appeal and the stay were refused and costs were awarded to the respondent.
Obiter and limits
- Court noted the practical effect of the respondent's 8-day work roster and reliance on family/helper and that the supervision order is appropriate to monitor any changes
- Comment that the court is never bound by SWO recommendations in the SIR and must exercise its unfettered discretion in the child's best interests
- Observation that the respondent initially acted in person and later obtained legal aid, leading to his supplemental submissions
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; summons for stay of execution dismissed; costs awarded to Respondent and to be taxed if not agreed; supervision order of 12 months to remain for monitoring.
- Leave to appeal refused and application dismissed (summons dated 6 February 2024 dismissed)
- Stay of execution refused
- Supervision order for 12 months to continue and progress report to be filed one month before expiry
- Parties to jointly appoint a parenting co-ordinator with costs shared equally in accordance with order of 21 July 2021
- Respondent to be provided with petitioner's roster changes if his work schedule changes
- Costs of this application to be paid by Petitioner to Respondent, to be taxed if not agreed
- Respondent's legal aid costs to be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations
Source and reliance status
Family Court · 1 August 2024
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.
Family Court
Judgment· 1 August 2024
bjbj FCMC 3123/2021 [2024] HKFC 143
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
MATRIMONIAL CAUSES NO. 3123 OF 2021 ----------------------------
BETWEEN HKW Petitioner and YYC Respondent ---------------------------- Coram : His Honour Judge S Lo in Chambers (Not Open to Public) Date of Petitioner s submission : 6 February 2024 Date of Respondent s submission : 19 February 2024 Date of Respondent s supplemental submission : 27 February 2024 Date of Decision : 1 August 2024 -----------------------
D E C I S I O N ( P s Leave to appeal ) ----------------------- This is the application taken out by the petitioner ( ) on 6 February 2024 for leave to appeal against my judgment given on 9 January 2024, in which I made an order that parties do have joint custody, M do have sole care and control of Cazzie, a girl born in July 2019, with defined access to the respondent ( ) as follows: F do have day access during the school day every Wednesday from 10 am to 1:15 pm (if Cazzie has afternoon class) or from 12 noon to 5pm (if Cazzie has morning class) 10 January 2024, provided that F is off duty or on leave; F do have day access every alternate Saturday starting from 13 January 2024 from 10 am to 7 pm, provided that F is off duty or on leave; F do have day access every alternate Sunday starting from 21 January 2024 from 10 am to 7 pm, provided that F is off duty or on leave; During the long school holidays such as the Chinese New Year, Easter and Christmas, F do have 2 additional day access per week from 10 am to 7 pm, provided that F is off duty or on leave; such days to be agreed by the parties, failing which the SWO shall make necessary arrangements; During the Summer Vacation, F do have 3 additional day access per week from 10 am to 7 pm, provided that F is off duty or on leave; such days to be agreed by the parties, failing which the SWO shall make necessary arrangements; On
single school holidays that fall between Mondays and Fridays, parties shall share equally and F do have day access from 10 am to 7 pm, provided that F is off duty or on leave; such days to be agreed by the parties, failing which the SWO shall make necessary arrangements; F do have staying access per week from 10 am to 7 pm the following day during the long school holidays such as the Chinese New Year, Easter and Christmas, provided that either F s mother or the domestic helper hired by F is present during the staying access; such days to be agreed by the parties, failing which the SWO shall make necessary arrangements; F do have 3 days 2 nights staying access per week from 10 am on the 1st day to 7 pm on the 3rd day during the Summer Vacation, provided that either F s mother or the domestic helper hired by F is present during the staying access; such days to be agreed by the parties, failing which the SWO shall make necessary arrangements; For the avoidance of doubt, if F selects staying access during the long school holidays, there be no additional day access as per para. (iv) and (v) above; M do have video access to Cazzie during staying access with F for 15 minutes every day from 8:30 pm to 9 pm; F do have video access to Cazzie for 15 minutes twice a week from 8:30 pm to 9 pm; such days to be agreed by the parties, failing which the SWO shall make necessary
arrangements; All handovers shall be at MTR station in Tseung Kwan O district or such other place mutually agreed by the parties. I further order in the Judgment that: supervision order for 12 months be granted; progress report be filed one month before the expiry of the supervision order; the parties do jointly appoint a parenting co-ordinator with costs to be shared equally in accordance with para. 5 of the Order made on 21 July 2021; F be allowed to approach the school of Cazzie for the purpose of obtaining Cazzie s information in school and school holidays; F shall immediately provide M and SWO with his new roster if his present 8-day work schedule changes; Penal notice be endorsed and personal service be dispensed with. M mainly disagrees with the order for defined access to F and also applies for stay of execution pending the outcome of this appeal. This application is disposed of on paper without oral hearing pursuant to the New Arrangement for Application for Leave to Appeal in the Family Court issued on 13 August 2018 ( New Arrangement ). Legal principles Section 63A(2) of the District Court Ordinance provides that for leave to appeal to be granted, the intended appeal should have a reasonable prospect of success or there should be some other reasons in the interest of justice why the appeal should be heard. A reasonable prospect of success involves the notion that the
prospect must be more than fanciful but which do not need to be shown to be probable (see KNM v. HTF, HCMP No.288/2011 per Hartmann JA at paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Judgment). Discussion Ground 1 Ms Leung for M submitted that the defined access arrangement places excessive caring time and responsibility upon F which is contrary to the best interest of Cazzie. As mentioned in para.70 and 71 of the Judgment, I am fully aware of the 8-day work schedule of F and his heavy reliance on the help of his mother and the newly hired domestic helper to look after Cazzie. That is the reason why I impose the condition of provided that F is off duty or on leave during the access time and made an order that F shall immediately provide M and SWO with his new roster if his present 8-day work schedule changes . I consider that the defined access granted to F is not excessive if and when he is off duty or on leave and he is assisted by his mother and/or the newly hired domestic helper during the access time. This Ground has no merit. Ground 2 Ms Leung for M submitted that the order for defined access as per sub para. (iv)-(v) and (vii)-(viii) above is made on a fundamentally different structure from the recommendations made by SWO in the updated SIR and without justification. In my view, the court is never bound by the recommendations made by SWO in the SIR. The family judge has always the
unfettered discretion to order the access arrangement, which is in the best interest of the child in question and suitable in the circumstances. I understand that F s work schedule may change suddenly out of his control and hence, supervision order for 12 months is necessary so that the SWO may monitor the situation closely. This Ground has no merit. Ground 3 Ms Leung for M submitted that there is no strict rule on equal sharing of long school holidays. In reality, I am of the view that the F s access in long school holidays is very likely to be less than 50% due to his work schedule. Further, it cannot be ignored that the order for defined access as per sub para. (vii)-(viii) is made on the condition that provided that either F s mother or the domestic helper hired by F is present during the staying access . In my view, F together with either his mother or the domestic helper must be able to look after Cazzie during stay access. This Ground has no merit. Conclusion To conclude, M has failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospect of success in her intended appeal and there is no other reason in the interests of justice why the appeal should be heard. Her application for leave to appeal should be dismissed. As no leave be granted for appeal, I fail to see why her application for stay shall be granted. M s summons dated 6 February 2024 be dismissed entirely. Regarding the
question of costs, there is no reason why costs shall not follow event. Initially, F acting in person lodged his skeleton submission in opposition on 19 February 2024 and subsequently, legal aid was granted to him. Mr Shaphan Marwah, counsel for F, lodged a supplemental submission together with a list of authorities on F s behalf on 27 February 2024. Perhaps due to the legal aid rules, F has not lodged his statement of costs in accordance with para. 9 of the New Arrangement. Thus, I order that costs of this application be paid by M to F, to be taxed if not agreed. F s own costs be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations. ( Simon Lo ) District Judge Ms Bridget Leung instructed by CL & Co. Solicitors for the Petitioner Mr Shaphan Marwah instructed by Mike So, Joseph Lau & Co. for the Respondent PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT -
PAGE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T U V m^O@ gd(c gdVo] gdVo] odUIUd=d=d5 hVo] hVo] hu_! hu_! hu_! hu_! hu_! hu_! gdu_! gdu_! gd![ hu_! hu_! hu_! gd![ gd![ plplplpl\ hu_! hu_! &`#$ gd![ gd![ xrxr `VLB gd![ mH <sH <P mH <sH <@ mH <sH <Z [Content_Types].xml _rels/.rels theme/theme/themeManager.xml K Y, sQ}# theme/theme/theme1.xml $O}) Xp90 +PHI| PP yu 9xu5 fs+W VF7H q=. 8}d- qyI@ j!Q_ jyV` |PZ+ T ""p < 4V O&x$ A8>v ;EUC n 8r *~P(5 .}x E /,EE\} theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.rels 5 6?$Q K(M&$R(.1 [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK theme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?> <a:clrMap xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" bg1="lt1" tx1="dk1" bg2="lt2" tx2="dk2" accent1="accent1" accent2="accent2" accent3="accent3" accent4="accent4" accent5="accent5" accent6="accent6" hlink="hlink" folHlink="folHlink"/> 4cHw U)(fE" Bm},D DI/l NT$rm
NLSD Bm}, <P$Z N;T= 34$@b Simon KM Lo Normal.dotm Windows User Microsoft Office Word Title <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?><b:Sources xmlns:b="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" xmlns="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" SelectedStyle="\APASixthEditionOfficeOnline.xsl" StyleName="APA" Version="6"></b:Sources> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?> <ds:datastoreItem ds:itemID="{F78B0ED7-E290-4F47-929B-B55C82BCF446}" xmlns:ds="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/customXml"><ds:schemaRefs><ds:schemaRef ds:uri="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography"/></ds:schemaRefs></ds:datastoreItem> Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8
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.