Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Ancillary relief jurisdiction

Legal area

Court

11 Dec 2014

YY v. QY

Citation

YY v. QY
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC5263/2012

The decree nisi was rescinded because it was obtained on materially untrue or incomplete evidence by the petitioner; however the Mainland divorce decree was not recognised because on balance the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to take part in the Mainland proceedings (s61(2)(a)(ii) MCO), so the Hong Kong petition was not a nullity and the respondent's applications to strike out the petition and to vacate the land registration failed. Costs were apportioned given partial success.
22 Feb 2013

YKYM v. YMCT

Citation

YKYM v. YMCT
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC15997/2011

On the evidence the mother paid the purchase price and intended the London property for her and the family’s use; the putative gift to the parties was not proven. The Wife failed to discharge the onus of rebutting the presumption of resulting trust or to establish an effective gift/advancement. The property was held in the husband’s name for convenience; the mother retained sole beneficial ownership.
13 Dec 2010

ML v. YJ

Citation

ML v. YJ
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV20/2009

The majority concluded that the Shenzhen divorce satisfied Part IX jurisdictional criteria and, absent manifest breach of public policy, must be recognized; recognition removes Hong Kong jurisdiction to make ancillary relief orders under s.25 MPPO once the foreign decree takes effect; the statutory public policy exception in s.61(2)(b) is narrow and to be exercised only in exceptional cases where recognition would plainly cause substantial injustice, which was not established to the requisite degree by the appellant in the majoritys view.
18 Dec 2009

ML v. YJ

Citation

ML v. YJ
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV89/2008

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was granted because the questions whether recognition of a foreign (PRC) divorce deprives Hong Kong courts of jurisdiction to grant ancillary relief and the scope of the discretion to refuse recognition on public policy grounds are questions of great general and public importance fit for determination by the Court of Final Appeal.
17 Jun 2009

ML v. YJ

Citation

ML v. YJ
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV89/2008

Majority (Cheung JA and Sakhrani J) held recognition of the Shenzhen divorce should be granted because the public policy exception in s61(2)(b) was not made out on the facts: the husband had a legitimate basis to litigate in Shenzhen, the wife’s prejudice was not so extreme as to justify refusing recognition, practical and procedural remedies and undertakings existed, and the court’s residual discretion must be exercised sparingly; accordingly recognition ousts Hong Kong jurisdiction over ancillary relief and ancillary proceedings must be stayed.
20 Mar 2008

ML v. YJ

Citation

ML v. YJ
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMC13/2006

The court dismissed the Husband's application and refused to recognize the PRC (Shenzhen) divorce for the purpose of preventing the Hong Kong court from granting ancillary relief or a decree absolute because the Husband had used the PRC proceedings unconscionably to frustrate the common intention that Hong Kong determine undistributed matrimonial assets; recognition would therefore be manifestly contrary to public policy under s61(2)(b). Custody and child maintenance jurisdiction in Hong Kong remained unaffected.
20 Aug 2007

B v. A

Citation

B v. A
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMC6/2007

The court held that s.3(c) conferred jurisdiction because, on the facts, the family had a real and substantial connection with Hong Kong despite only six and a half months' residence: the husband worked and ran an office in Hong Kong, the family had settled domestic and educational arrangements and intended to remain for a fairly extended period, and expatriate status does not preclude a substantial connection; accordingly the husband's summons seeking to deny jurisdiction was dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

YY v. QY

YKYM v. YMCT

ML v. YJ

ML v. YJ

ML v. YJ

ML v. YJ

B v. A