Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Hague convention implementation

  • 30 Jul 2012

    NP also known as NF v. CTF

    Citation
    NP also known as NF v. CTF
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC625/2011

    Leave was granted in principle for the mother to take S to Thailand to attend the mother\'s wedding because the social welfare report and court observations found S attached and well cared for by both parents, current risk of abduction by the mother assessed as low, and the child\'s attendance at the mother\'s wedding deemed in her interests. General leave for indefinite overseas travel was refused because mutual trust remained insufficient and the father retained a greater existing liberty to travel; removal outside Hong Kong should be decided case by case. Leave is conditional on the mother…

  • 13 Dec 2010

    ML v. YJ

    Citation
    ML v. YJ
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FACV20/2009

    The majority concluded that the Shenzhen divorce satisfied Part IX jurisdictional criteria and, absent manifest breach of public policy, must be recognized; recognition removes Hong Kong jurisdiction to make ancillary relief orders under s.25 MPPO once the foreign decree takes effect; the statutory public policy exception in s.61(2)(b) is narrow and to be exercised only in exceptional cases where recognition would plainly cause substantial injustice, which was not established to the requisite degree by the appellant in the majoritys view.

  • 18 Aug 2004

    SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. M K

    Citation
    SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. M K
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP2067/2004

    The Court of First Instance has jurisdiction, derived from its wardship jurisdiction and/or its power to grant injunctive relief, to make a mirror order that gives effect in Hong Kong to a foreign (English) child custody/contact order while the child is present in Hong Kong; in doing so the court should take the foreign order as read and generally should not conduct a substantive welfare re‑examination; comity and the welfare rationale justify making the order.