RB v. L

RB v. L

Court found Australia to be the Child's habitual residence and wrongful retention commenced in July 2012; although application was brought after more than one year, the Mother failed to prove settlement in Hong Kong, consent or acquiescence by the Father, or that return would expose the Child to a grave risk or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
RB v. L
Parties
Plaintiff: RB; Defendant: L
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 December 2014
Case Number
HCMP2706/2014
Procedural Posture
Hague Convention Return Application Under Child Abduction and Custody Ordinance Cap 512 / Judgment (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Return of the Child to Australia ordered
Legal Topics
Wrongful Removal/retention, Habitual Residence, Article 12 Delay and Settlement, Article 13 Consent/acquiescence, Article 13(b) Grave Risk, Consequential Arrangements
Source Language
en
International Child Abduction Family Law Child Custody Private International Law Wrongful Removal/retention Habitual Residence Article 12 Delay and Settlement Article 13 Consent/acquiescence +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RB

Plaintiff

L

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Hague Convention Return Application Under Child Abduction and Custody Ordinance Cap 512 / Judgment (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Child was wrongfully removed or retained from Australia
  2. 2 Whether the application was brought within one year or whether the Child is settled in Hong Kong (Article 12)
  3. 3 Whether the Father consented to or acquiesced in the Child's retention (Article 13(a))

Ratio Decidendi

Court found Australia to be the Child's habitual residence and wrongful retention commenced in July 2012; although application was brought after more than one year, the Mother failed to prove settlement in Hong Kong, consent or acquiescence by the Father, or that return would expose the Child to a grave risk or intolerable situation; accordingly the court ordered return to Australia under Article 12(2).

Court Disposition

Return of the Child to Australia ordered

Orders

  • Order that the Child shall return to Australia no later than 7 January 2015
  • Mother shall accompany the Child back to Australia