LCH v. JMC

LCH v. JMC

No order as to costs was made for the Stay Application and the Return Application because both were interlocutory child‑related summary proceedings where the usual practice of no order as to costs applies; there was insufficient evidence that the Mother acted reprehensibly or unreasonably or that the child's welfare would be put at risk if no costs order were made; therefore discretion under Order 62 and relevant authorities was exercised to decline a costs order.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2521
Parties
Plaintiff: LCH; Defendant: JMC
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 October 2019
Case Number
HCMP678/2019
Procedural Posture
Child Abduction / Guardianship Return and Stay Applications / Costs Decision Post Judgment (paper Hearing)
Outcome
No order as to costs in relation to the Stay Application and the Return Application
Legal Topics
Return Application, Stay (forum Non Conveniens), Costs in Child Proceedings, Habitual Residence, Hague Convention Article 26
Source Language
EN
Family Law Private International Law Civil Procedure Return Application Stay (forum Non Conveniens) Costs in Child Proceedings Habitual Residence Hague Convention Article 26

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LCH

Plaintiff

JMC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Child Abduction / Guardianship Return and Stay Applications / Costs Decision Post Judgment (paper Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be ordered for interlocutory return and stay applications concerning a child
  2. 2 Whether the usual practice of no order as to costs in children proceedings applies to Hague‑style/interlocutory return proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the mother's conduct was unreasonable such as to justify a costs order

Ratio Decidendi

No order as to costs was made for the Stay Application and the Return Application because both were interlocutory child‑related summary proceedings where the usual practice of no order as to costs applies; there was insufficient evidence that the Mother acted reprehensibly or unreasonably or that the child's welfare would be put at risk if no costs order were made; therefore discretion under Order 62 and relevant authorities was exercised to decline a costs order.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs in relation to the Stay Application and the Return Application

Orders

  • No order as to costs in relation to the Stay Application and the Return Application, including any costs reserved