Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Divorce

  • 23 Apr 2025

    鄭 對 陳

    Citation
    [2025] HKCA 340
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAMP81/2024

    The fresh evidence was inadmissible at the leave stage because it could and should have been raised at trial and, in any event, would not have affected the trial judge's assessment of the documentary letter or the correctness of her findings; the proposed grounds of appeal merely re‑asserted rejected trial contentions without identifying any clear error of fact or law, and therefore lacked a reasonable prospect of success under s63A(2) Cap.336; accordingly both the application to admit fresh evidence and the application for leave to appeal were dismissed and costs awarded to the respondent.

  • 19 Jul 2024

    吳前稱吳 對 黃

    Citation
    [2024] HKCA 675
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAMP15/2024

    The application for leave to appeal was refused because the husband's grounds amount to re-arguing factual credibility findings without demonstrating any error of law or that the trial judge was plainly wrong; mainland administrative and court decisions and immigration records supported the marriage's validity, so there was no real prospect of success and the application was wholly without merit.

  • 19 Jul 2024

    黃 對 吳前稱吳

    Citation
    [2024] HKCA 675
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAMP14/2024

    Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds were merely disagreements with the trial judge's factual and credibility findings, lacked specific demonstration of legal or obvious factual error, and were contradicted by mainland administrative and judicial rulings and documentary evidence confirming the marriage; absent new cogent evidence of forgery or illegality, there was no arguable case to permit an appeal.

  • 25 Mar 2024

    李 對 蘇

    Citation
    [2024] HKFC 57
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC9180/2022

    Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the respondent delayed about eight months without adequate explanation, had no realistic prospect of success on appeal, service of the proceedings was properly effected and the respondent's asserted reasons (new immigrant, ignorance of law, inability to pay, history of abuse) did not justify granting the extension; therefore the summons for leave dated 21 November 2023 was dismissed and the earlier costs order stands.

  • 13 Mar 2024

    張 對 黃

    Citation
    [2024] HKCA 242
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAMP510/2022

    Leave to appeal was refused because the appellant failed to put forward any arguable defence or evidential material that would give the appeal a real prospect of success, the District Court judge's factual findings and exercise of discretion contained no reviewable error, and there were no other compelling reasons to grant permission; accordingly the application was dismissed and further applications for an oral hearing were barred under the cited rule.

  • 8 Jan 2024

    黃 對 吳前稱吳

    Citation
    [2024] HKFC 6
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC2867/2021

    Husband failed to show any reasonable prospect of success or a principled error in the trial judge's handling of evidence and credibility findings; the trial judge's factual conclusions were supported by the evidential record and the husband's points did not disclose arguable errors of law or fact — leave to appeal is refused and costs awarded.

  • 7 Nov 2023

    黃 對 吳前稱吳

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 245
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC2867/2021

    The husband failed to prove the marriage was invalid; his documentary evidence did not establish non‑attendance or invalidity, PRC administrative agencies and courts had rejected his requests to cancel the registration, s20(1) did not provide grounds for annulment and s20A(1) did not assist him given the PRC determinations; accordingly the husband's nullity petition is dismissed and the wife's divorce petition is granted (decree nisi); costs to husband; referral to DOJ for possible prosecution of bigamy.

  • 11 Sept 2023

    CHENG KWOK SING v. TAM PING

    Citation
    [2023] HKCFI 2355
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA190/2023

    The summons was adjourned because the evidence of service was insufficient: there was no particularised evidence that the defendant was within the jurisdiction when the writs were inserted or that the insertion brought the proceedings to his attention, rendering the purported service potentially irregular.

  • 13 Apr 2023

    周 對 陳

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 61
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC8671/2020

    Although the parties lived at separate addresses, the applicant failed to prove a continuous two-year separation before the petition because there was ongoing monthly financial support, regular meetings and family interactions, and no evidence of mutual recognition that the marriage had ended; therefore s11A(2)(d) was not made out and the petition must be dismissed.

  • 19 Oct 2022

    WKL v. GF

    Citation
    [2022] HKFC 220
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC12808/2017

    The court accepted the Husband's pleaded case and sworn evidence that the parties had lived separate lives from June 2014, rejected the Wife's unpleaded and late evidence as inadmissible, found jurisdiction already determined in favour of Hong Kong and that sections 15(3) and 15B did not operate to defeat the petition; accordingly decree nisi was granted for two years separation.