Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Costs in children proceedings

  • 7 May 2024

    T, RH v. K, CS

    Citation
    [2024] HKFC 100
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC8704/2023

    Leave granted for the temporary removal of the two children to the USA (15 June–28 July 2024) and South Korea (29 July–8 August 2024) subject to conditions: mother to provide itinerary and accommodation details and updates, to give a written undertaking to return the children at the end of the trips, to facilitate father's daily remote video access on the children’s own devices between 7am–11pm HKT, and to facilitate one hour daily access in South Korea at the father's hotel or another agreed place between 1–8 August 2024; no order as to costs.

  • 9 Jan 2024

    HKW v. YYC

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 262
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC3123/2021

    The court awarded joint custody but granted sole day-to-day care and control to the mother (petitioner) because she was the primary carer, had a more stable and flexible work schedule, and reliable support from family and an experienced domestic helper; the father's 8-day shifting roster limited his capacity to provide routine care. The court accepted and gave weight to the Social Investigation Reports' recommendations, imposed a 12-month supervision order, directed appointment of a parenting coordinator and made defined access arrangements for the father, balancing contact with the child's w…

  • 11 Oct 2021

    NLC v. YMF

    Citation
    [2021] HKFC 203
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC8442/2018

    The father failed to discharge the burden of proving a material change of circumstances; evidence showed no coercion in the consent process, the welfare of the child was best served by maintaining sole custody, the father demonstrated unreliable conduct (including inconsistent statements, late maintenance payments and untruths) and tactical litigation tied to ancillary relief; therefore variation to joint custody was refused and exceptional conduct justified a limited costs order against the father.

  • 13 May 2021

    NPYJ v. SMRC

    Citation
    [2021] HKFC 83
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC9098/2018

    The application for leave to appeal was refused because the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success: prior order already permitted out-of-jurisdiction travel so the new application was superfluous and amounted to an abuse of process, forcing travel would not be in the children's best interests, and therefore leave was denied and costs awarded to the Petitioner.

  • 21 Aug 2018

    JRMW v. NAV

    Citation
    [2018] HKFC 140
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC8504/2017

    Leave to appeal was refused because the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success: the trial judge correctly found the father's childcare plan rested on a fabricated relationship making the relocation unrealistic and contrary to the boys' best interests, and no arguable error of law or misexercise of discretion was demonstrated; costs order likewise justified.

  • 20 Oct 2016

    AAG v. JDC

    Citation
    AAG v. JDC
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC4022/2016

    Leave granted: the court found the risk of non‑return negligible based on undertakings, detailed itinerary, school consent for limited absence, sister/brother undertaking to return children in emergency and the mother's proposals to mitigate security concerns; unsubstantiated allegations and lack of evidence about police complaints and third‑party risks meant refusal was not justified; requested bond was excessive and unnecessary; order made in terms of consent summons with additional undertakings and ancillary nesting swap; no order as to costs (order nisi).

  • 10 Oct 2014

    JJBGMK v. JPLY

    Citation
    JJBGMK v. JPLY
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP61/2011

    The court held that the Father's one-off HK$160,000 payment should be given limited credit (approximately HK$27,000) against backdated maintenance but no further set-off/order was necessary; the Mother's application for leave to appeal the costs order was refused for lack of reasonable prospect of success; none of the four summons resolved by undertakings warranted an adverse costs order against the Father and therefore no order as to costs was made for those summons; the Mother was ordered to pay the Father's costs of her leave application (to be taxed if not agreed) with a certificate for c…

  • 10 Feb 2014

    NAV v. JTMW

    Citation
    NAV v. JTMW
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC4191/2012

    Although the materials were likely privileged, they were relevant to the children custody/care dispute and inclusion in the affidavit was not improper; however the petitioner unreasonably procrastinated in resolving the privilege objection despite legal advice and correspondence, thereby causing unnecessary costs — accordingly the summons was granted in terms of removal/expunging and return of documents and the petitioner was ordered to pay one-third of the respondent's costs, summarily to be assessed if not agreed.

  • 29 Oct 2013

    IDC v. SSA

    Citation
    IDC v. SSA
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP158/2011

    While starting principles favour no order for costs in children cases, costs prima facie follow the event for financial provision claims; balancing the Mother’s obligation to bring the claim, the marked disparity in means, and the Father's partial responsibility for increasing costs through disclosure issues, but also accounting for the Mother's unreasonably high demands that increased costs, it was fair to order the Father to pay 70% of the Mother's costs, taxed party & party if not agreed, with credit for HK$750,000 already paid.

  • 30 Aug 2013

    CCMJ v. SSM formerly known as SKL

    Citation
    CCMJ v. SSM formerly known as SKL<br>
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP67/2010

    Maintaining the child's status quo in kindergarten and preserving her right to participate in the POA scheme better serves the child's best interests than permitting the mother to enroll her in Primary One at Funful in Sept 2013; factors supporting this include the child's young age and immaturity, the importance of continuity and stability, evidence of positive progress in current kindergarten and English classes, and the loss of POA entitlement if P1 commences now; accordingly the injunction restraining the mother was granted and the child ordered to attend K3 at HKPS.