Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Customary marriage

  • 17 Mar 2017

    FUNG SING WAI v. CHOW CHIU WAN AND OTHERS

    Citation
    FUNG SING WAI v. CHOW CHIU WAN AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV245/2015

    The Court dismissed the appeal: Madam Chow failed to prove formal validity of the alleged December 1949 marriage (insufficient and unreliable evidence of any celebration meeting the required formalities under the law/custom of the place); even accepting arguments on capacity, the abrogation of the Civil Code and absence of proved formal compliance meant the alleged union could not be recognized for intestacy purposes; accordingly the grant of Letters of Administration to Madam Chow was properly revoked and should remain granted to the plaintiff.

  • 30 May 2012

    RE TSE CHU

    Citation
    RE TSE CHU
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAG11051/2011

    On the evidence before the court the court could not accept the assertion that Poon, Chan and the Deceased were 'equal wives' (ping chai); Chan's status requires application of the 1931 Republican Civil Code and may confer wife-like status unless set aside; the Deceased's 1945 union requires proof of customary concubinage under Hong Kong law; because material facts and expert evidence are missing the court directed the solicitor to file further affirmation and, if necessary, expert evidence within three weeks failing which the application will be rejected without prejudice.

  • 29 May 2009

    RE NG KA WING

    Citation
    RE NG KA WING
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAG3253/2007

    The applicant was legally married to another person until 11 November 1977 and therefore had no capacity to enter a valid marriage with the deceased; coupled with the statutory abolition of Chinese customary marriage from 7 October 1971, the purported customary marriage could not establish her as the lawful kit-fat widow, therefore the probate application must be dismissed.

  • 4 Dec 2007

    HRT v. RHT

    Citation
    HRT v. RHT
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC5488/2006

    The 1960 Sindhi Hindu ceremony produced a valid marriage under Indonesian law because Foreign Orientals non-Chinese were governed by customary law in 1960 and no central civil registration was required; the 8 August 1960 marriage certificate is admissible evidence of that customary marriage; the husband failed to produce decisive evidence of invalidity or of a customary dissolution in or about 1980; the parties have been separated for over two years; accordingly a decree nisi of divorce is granted.

  • 11 Dec 2003

    LIM POR YEN v. HIGHFIT DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    LIM POR YEN v. HIGHFIT DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1942/2002

    Pleadings that assert status under Chinese customary law without clear unambiguous factual averments are unnecessary and liable to be struck out where the central issue is the actual nature of the personal relationship and the parties' evidence; the presumption of advancement is an exception to resulting trust and is a tool of last resort, not a substitute for ordinary evidence in a contractual claim, and reliance on it would cause undue delay and expense through expert evidence, therefore the strike out was justified.

  • 2 Sept 2002

    L v. T

    Citation
    L v. T
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC2250/2000

    The Court held the 1951 customary marriage remained subsisting despite physical separation from 1956 due to the customary context and ongoing clan recognition; the 1983 High Court settlement did not dispose of the Wife's matrimonial claims; delay did not bar relief given the circumstances; applying s.7 factors and Duxbury guidance but allowing adjustment where resources exceed needs, the Wife's reasonable needs and the equities justified a single lump sum award of HK$12,000,000 as full and final settlement of her ancillary claims.

  • 12 May 2000

    C v. C

    Citation
    C v. C
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV303/1998

    The Deputy Judge's dismissal was wrong because he failed to apply the statutory definition of 'modern marriage' and relevant authorities and mischaracterised the described ceremony; the appeal is allowed and the case is remitted to the District Court for directions to resolve the factual dispute whether a qualifying ceremony took place; the Court declines to decide whether s.9(3) permits a declaration that a validated marriage does not subsist.

  • 10 Oct 1989

    NG YEUNG LAI LIN AND ANOTHER v. FUNG SHUI KWAN AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    NG YEUNG LAI LIN AND ANOTHER v. FUNG SHUI KWAN AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAP1/1987

    Section 7(2) of the Marriage Reform Ordinance raises a presumption that a marriage celebrated in accordance with proved local traditional customs is deemed to accord with Chinese law and custom, but that presumption is rebuttable; here the presumption in favour of the 1st defendant was not rebutted by evidence of custom but was successfully rebutted by the clear prohibition in the Ta Tsing Lut Li against more than one living wife, therefore the 1st defendant's 1944 marriage cannot be declared a valid customary marriage under the Marriage Reform Ordinance and she is not a 'wife' for intestate…

  • 8 Mar 1983

    CHONG CHUI YUK-CHING v. CHONG PUI-CHEONG

    Citation
    CHONG CHUI YUK-CHING v. CHONG PUI-CHEONG
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ9036/1982

    On the evidence the court found a Chinese customary marriage was celebrated on 28 September 1971 satisfying the requirements of s.7 and s.7(3) of the Marriage Reform Ordinance; a later registered marriage does not negate the existence of that prior customary marriage and a registrar's certificate does not conclusively determine prior marital status.

  • 26 Apr 1974

    CHAN HING-CHEUNG AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN

    Citation
    CHAN HING-CHEUNG AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC579/1973

    Having regard to Hong Kong's local circumstances, customary recognition of tsips/secondary wives, related local statutes and binding Privy Council authority, the court concluded that a woman in the position of a tsip is to be treated as a 'wife' for the purposes of s.6 Evidence Ordinance and is therefore incompetent to give evidence against her husband in criminal proceedings; because her evidence was material to the convictions the appeals were allowed and the convictions quashed.