K v. A

K v. A

The respondent was guilty of contempt on Count 1 (disclosure) because the Li affidavit objectively did not disclose HVD’s exact whereabouts forthwith and was prepared to support a stay application rather than to comply with the disclosure order; the respondent’s assertion he authorised disclosure for that purpose was rejected as incredible. He was guilty on Count 2 (return) because he failed to take the necessary steps to return HVD by the 14‑day deadline and the evidence establishes the omission was deliberate or not accidental; the post‑deadline medical explanations did not purge the original breach. Count 3 failed because the solicitor’s statements at the July 21 hearing were not a...

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 1024
Parties
Applicant: K; Respondent: A
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 March 2025
Case Number
HCMP2186/2021
Procedural Posture
Committal for Contempt / Judgment at Trial (sentencing Adjourned)
Outcome
Respondent found guilty of contempt on Count 1 (disclosure) and Count 2 (return); Count 3 dismissed; sentencing adjourned for mitigation and sentence.
Legal Topics
Committal, Breach of Court Order, Disclosure Obligations, Return Orders, Undertaking, Purging Contempt
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Mental Health Law Protective Jurisdiction Committal Breach of Court Order Disclosure Obligations Return Orders +2 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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K

Applicant

A

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Committal for Contempt / Judgment at Trial (sentencing Adjourned)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent complied with the disclosure order to disclose the exact whereabouts of HVD
  2. 2 Whether respondent took all necessary steps to return HVD to Hong Kong within 14 days as ordered
  3. 3 Whether an oral statement by respondent's solicitor at a hearing constituted a formal undertaking enforceable by committal

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent was guilty of contempt on Count 1 (disclosure) because the Li affidavit objectively did not disclose HVD’s exact whereabouts forthwith and was prepared to support a stay application rather than to comply with the disclosure order; the respondent’s assertion he authorised disclosure for that purpose was rejected as incredible. He was guilty on Count 2 (return) because he failed to take the necessary steps to return HVD by the 14‑day deadline and the evidence establishes the omission was deliberate or not accidental; the post‑deadline medical explanations did not purge the original breach. Count 3 failed because the solicitor’s statements at the July 21 hearing were not a...

Court Disposition

Respondent found guilty of contempt on Count 1 (disclosure) and Count 2 (return); Count 3 dismissed; sentencing adjourned for mitigation and sentence.

Orders

  • Costs order nisi: Applicant to have 75% of the costs of the originating summons (including leave application and reserved costs) on an indemnity basis, to be taxed if not agreed; certificate for two counsel
  • Originating summons adjourned for mitigation and sentencing to a date to be fixed in consultation with counsel no later than four months from judgment, one hour reserved; one counsel only at directions stage