Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Access/contact

  • 24 Apr 2023

    CN v. LYP

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 73
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC2915/2020

    On the balance of the welfare factors the court concluded relocation to Singapore with Father is in the children's best interests because Father demonstrated financial capacity and concrete education arrangements (including a reserved school place), presented a detailed and realistic transition plan addressing emotional and language needs, was committed to co‑parenting and mirror/supervision measures, whereas Mother lacked stable income, relied on uncertain family support for substantial educational costs, had not facilitated meaningful contact and there was real risk of impaired relationship…

  • 27 May 2022

    C v. S

    Citation
    [2022] HKCFI 1553
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP929/2017

    The judge was not satisfied that the Father had exhausted his financial capacity given prior borrowing and payments; accordingly there was no reason he should not shoulder the entirety of the family therapist's fees for the child and the parents (joint and individual sessions). The court directed the Official Solicitor to obtain a brief estimate letter from the therapist and to draw up a draft order implementing the court's directions for approval.

  • 30 Apr 2021

    LCH v. JMC

    Citation
    [2021] HKFC 88
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP179/2019

    The court refused the mother's application to relocate the child to Toronto because the relocation would significantly undermine the child's relationship with her father and was not in the child's best interests on a welfare analysis; the court therefore ordered joint custody and shared care with a specific access regime for the father (two blocks of four consecutive days overnight per month plus six further day accesses per month, totalling 14 days monthly), school holidays to be split equally, and no order as to costs nisi to be absolute in 14 days.

  • 14 Oct 2020

    FYMB v. CCH

    Citation
    [2020] HKFC 210
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC9300/2012

    Applying the Guardianship of Minors Ordinance and the Payne guidance, the court found the Mother's relocation plan genuine and realistic, the Father's opposition genuine but the detriment finely balanced, and the Social Welfare Officer’s reports and the child's expressed mature wish decisive. It was therefore in the child's best interests to permit permanent relocation to Canada with the Mother as sole carer, subject to ordered access arrangements and financial provision; relocation deferred until no earlier than 28 December 2020 to minimize disruption and allow immigration processing.

  • 28 May 2020

    LEYY v. UKWK

    Citation
    [2020] HKFC 118
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC1393/2015

    Costs in private children proceedings are exceptional; the father’s litigation conduct was sufficiently unreasonable to warrant an adverse costs order but not to the rare degree required for indemnity costs. Therefore the father was ordered to contribute 50% of the mother’s costs of and arising out of the amended summons dated 10 September 2018 (including related applications and reserved costs), with a certificate for counsel and taxation on a party-and-party basis if not agreed.

  • 12 Dec 2019

    AN LW v. AW nee AC

    Citation
    [2019] HKFC 320
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCJA1081/2011

    Leave granted: judge concluded permanent relocation to Michigan with the father is in the children's best interests based on education prospects (IB school availability), superior housing and hands‑on care, concerns over mother's supervision, the older child's expressed views, and subject to conditions (mirror order in Michigan, school enrolment evidence, father undertakings).

  • 29 May 2019

    F v. W

    Citation
    [2019] HKFC 137
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC6824/2016

    On balance and applying the paramountcy of the child's best interests, the court accepted and relied on the Social Investigation Reports and the evidence that the mother was more attuned to Y's special needs, had organised and engaged in effective educational and therapy programs, and maintained a closer attachment beneficial for a young autistic child; both parents could provide physical and emotional care but the mother's demonstrated ability to meet Y's educational and training needs justified awarding sole care and control to her while preserving joint custody and granting reasonable acce…

  • 22 Jan 2018

    DCB v. AB

    Citation
    [2018] HKCFI 162
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP2173/2014

    The father's summons was dismissed because it was unsupported by a filed affirmation and produced no evidence of a change in circumstances or any reason to vary the 16.05.17 Order; reports from social welfare and the Official Solicitor established that the child's welfare was being properly maintained and that it was in the child's best interests to preserve the existing residential and access arrangements.

  • 18 Oct 2017

    CCMJ v. SSM FORMERLY KNOWN AS SKL

    Citation
    CCMJ v. SSM FORMERLY KNOWN AS SKL
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP1269/2017

    Leave to appeal was granted because it was reasonably arguable that a generic "reasonable access" order would be ineffective where access had been heavily contested since 2010, justifying appellate scrutiny; no further access order was made because a prior interim order by B Chu J provided specific Saturday access and the court found that supplementary directions were unnecessary; costs of the application were ordered in the cause of the appeal and the Respondent's costs were to be taxed under the Legal Aid Regulations.

  • 20 Sept 2017

    JMFC also known as C, J v. DJH

    Citation
    JMFC also known as C, J v. DJH
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC11755/2015

    Court found the father's relocation application genuine and realistic, concluded that the parties cannot sustainably remain in Hong Kong given financial realities, and determined that overall best interests of the children favored relocation to Perth where the father's plan was more concrete, family support existed and costs were lower; accordingly granted leave for relocation with joint custody, mother having primary care and defined access to father, and imposed specific access, holiday, therapeutic and administrative orders to protect the children’s welfare and parental relationships.