8 Dec 1998
The court allowed the appeal and substituted the sentence to permit the appellant's immediate discharge as an act of exceptional leniency because she was the primary carer of young children and had compelling family welfare considerations; the magistrate's original sentences were not criticized but were varied to avoid undue hardship to dependants.
6 Jun 1995
The court found credible evidence of repeated violent conduct and a real risk of continuing physical danger; applying s.3(2) Cap.189 and the principle in Grant v James the court continued the non-molestation injunction and granted a limited-duration ouster order because the wife’s need to reside with the children and her inability to afford repairs outweighed the husband’s alternative accommodation options.
13 Dec 1985
Interim maintenance for the petitioner was refused because the evidence showed she is a woman of substantial wealth who had concealed the extent of her assets and family funds; given the statutory test of reasonableness and needs and the respondent's income and capacity to meet child-related needs, the proper order was to require the respondent to contribute to the upkeep of the children only, in the sum of HK$16,000 per month, and not to pay maintenance to the petitioner.
18 Oct 1985
The trial judge properly considered the established working rule favoring mothers but, on the evidence about the mother's conduct and the father's suitability and continuity of care, validly awarded custody to the father; the Court of Appeal will not disturb such a discretionary custody decision absent clear error, and no such error was found, so the appeal is dismissed.
5 May 1971
The Full Court refused the mother's application for a stay of execution because the mother had unilaterally retained the children contrary to an Australian custody order (characterised as 'kidnapping'), there was no reliable evidence the children would be harmed by returning to the father's custody in Holland, the appeal's prospects of success were remote, and appellate interference in infancy cases is exceptional; therefore the balance of convenience required immediate compliance with the custody order and refusal of the stay.
14 Nov 1968
Because the record contained material indicating the respondent's possible mental and physical incapacity and the magistrate did not pursue adequate further inquiry, the custody award could not stand; the appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted for re-trial before a differently constituted court.
3 Apr 1968
Applying section 2 of the Infants Custody Ordinance and authorities, the court concluded the children's welfare is best served by remaining in their familiar home with the father: petitioner was the innocent party, competent and able to provide stability; respondent's repeated deception, temper, lack of contrition and risk of remarriage made her less suitable. The court awarded custody to the father and reasonable access to the mother and awarded compensatory damages against the second co-respondent in the sum of $40,000 (pecuniary loss $30,000; injury to feelings $10,000).