The Court of Appeal granted direct leave, allowed the mother’s appeal, set aside the refusal of an injunction, and made interim child-protection orders with no order as to costs.
Domestic and cohabitation relationship violence ordinance
Maintaining the children's existing stable arrangement in Hong Kong best serves their welfare: joint custody is appropriate; father is the more suitable person for day-to-day care and control because he is the established primary carer, provides stability for schooling and daily needs, and there is no proven risk of harm; mother is granted reasonable contact; travel to Mainland for visits is permitted given historical practice and absence of objection from father.
The Court of First Instance granted parental orders for two children born through illegal surrogacy arrangements, approved specified payments, and extended the six-month filing period.
With a signed consent to withdraw by the applicant and proposed third respondent/appellant and no opposition from respondents (neutral stance), the Court allowed withdrawal and struck out the appeal CACV 537/2025 and the joinder summons filed 23 July 2025; the Court exercised its discretion to make no order as to costs in respect of the appeal, the summons and the 24 July 2025 affidavit; parties' names were anonymized because the case involves a minor.
The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal, dismissed new evidence and stay applications, and upheld paper determination of expert issues in a child custody dispute.
Leave to appeal
Parental alienation
Expert evidence and cross-examination
Admission of fresh evidence (ladd v marshall; o 59 r 10(2))
The mother’s application for a non-molestation order and ouster order was dismissed because the alleged incidents did not meet the statutory threshold for molestation.
The Family Court dismissed the respondent’s application for leave to appeal and stay of execution, holding there was no reasonable prospect of success.
A District Court child-maintenance judgment partly allowed the mother’s claims, rejected much of the Autism Circle evidence, and awarded reduced lump sum, periodic maintenance, and carer’s allowance.