Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Consent and acquiescence

  • 20 Feb 2025

    Q v. J AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 632
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP2721/2024

    On the evidence, including contemporaneous messages and the parties’ conduct, the court found the child had not lost habitual residence in Shanghai as of 3 August 2024; accordingly the Hague application failed. Alternatively, even if Japan were habitual residence the mother had consented under the conditional agreement. Under wardship (paramount welfare), a summary order for return to Shanghai was made as being in the child’s best interests, subject to detailed protective measures and medical supervision including preference for the mother to accompany the return.

  • 13 May 2022

    T v. L

    Citation
    [2022] HKCFI 1418
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP376/2022

    Court found on the balance of probabilities that the United Kingdom was the child's habitual residence immediately before removal; the mother's removal on 7 March 2022 was wrongful because it breached the father's custody rights; there was insufficient evidence of the father's consent or subsequent acquiescence; the mother failed to establish a grave risk of harm or that return would be intolerable; the child's views were of limited weight given age and immaturity; accordingly the court ordered the child's return to the UK subject to the father's undertakings.

  • 11 Sept 1998

    Regency International Hotels (Hong Kong) Ltd. v. Grandfield Pacific Hotel Ltd.

    Citation
    Regency International Hotels (Hong Kong) Ltd. v. Grandfield Pacific Hotel Ltd.
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW290/1998

    The striking out application is dismissed because the opposing contributories failed to show the petition is bound to fail; the existence of the alleged fundamental understanding, any acquiescence in illegal trading, and the alleged indemnity are factual matters properly resolved at trial; Re a Company is distinguishable and does not prevent the petition proceeding under Hong Kong law.

  • 4 Jul 1985

    LUI CHOY v. HO SIU HAN

    Citation
    LUI CHOY v. HO SIU HAN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA6727/1983

    The April 1982 transfer was a sham and was not known to, consented by or acquiesced in by the landlord; defendant Chan remained the tenant and was liable for arrears, management fees, electricity, agreed repair costs (less tenant fixtures) and one month's mesne profits after re‑entry; defendant Ho was an unauthorised occupant/trespasser and liable for one month's mesne profits; the salvage counterclaim failed for lack of entitlement and removal delay rendered salvage negligible.