Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Interim access

  • 19 May 2025

    WD v. LN

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 2025
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP338/2025

    Leave to appeal was refused because the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and was, in significant respects, academic: the non-removal restriction was necessary for the child's best interests given the defendant's intention to relocate the child; a Family Court Master had already made a similar non-removal order and the High Court had de-warded the child, rendering the interim-interim access order time-limited and moot; the defendant had been served with the plaintiff's skeleton argument and bundle and had been given an opportunity to be heard; the Leave Summons was unmerit…

  • 22 May 2024

    T, RH v. K, CS

    Citation
    [2024] HKFC 110
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC8704/2023

    Senior Counsel fees of HK$235,000 were allowed in full and solicitors' costs were assessed at HK$70,000, resulting in a summary assessment of costs in favour of the Respondent totalling HK$305,000 payable forthwith by the Petitioner because Senior Counsel involvement was justified by prior instruction history and the circumstances of the hearing.

  • 7 Sept 2023

    TRH v. KCS

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 182
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC8704/2023

    Equal shared interim care on a 2-2-5-5 basis was refused because the short-term status quo favoured the mother as main carer and it would not be in the children's best interests to upset that arrangement; however, the father was granted reasonable interim access pending the Social Investigation Report with a specified access timetable starting 11 September 2023 and supervision was not ordered.

  • 21 Nov 2022

    HKW v. YYC

    Citation
    [2022] HKFC 245
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC3123/2021

    The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant's delay of about four months and three weeks was inordinate and inadequately explained, the intended appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success as the interim access order was a case management decision intended to be short term, and there was no other reason in the interests of justice to grant leave.

  • 10 Sept 2021

    C v. R

    Citation
    [2021] HKCFI 2706
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP1080/2021

    HD was habitually resident in Hong Kong immediately before removal; the father held and was exercising rights of custody (including interim access and ongoing proceedings for joint custody); the mother unilaterally removed HD to the UK without the father's consent or leave of the court, thereby breaching those custody rights within the meaning of Article 3; accordingly an Article 15 declaration was warranted and granted.

  • 16 May 2017

    DCB v. AB

    Citation
    DCB v. AB
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP2173/2014

    Applying the paramountcy of the child's welfare and weighing social worker assessments, evidential findings and practical realities, relocation to Singapore was refused as not presently in the child's best interests due to high parental conflict, the child's current settled situation in Hong Kong, uncertainties about long term arrangements and supervision in Singapore; however, on balance the Mother was found the more suitable primary carer and the 19.05.15 custody order was varied to grant Mother sole care and control with a defined access regime for the Father and the child to remain a ward…

  • 19 Jun 2015

    DX v. LN

    Citation
    DX v. LN
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC7870/2014

    Care and control of both children was vested in the mother because she was the primary carer, social work assessment supported her, it is in the children's best interests (including keeping the siblings together), and the father’s history of extensive travel, business commitments, and likely delegation of day‑to‑day care to grandmother/helpers rendered him unsuitable to displace the mother as primary carer.

  • 4 Nov 2013

    TLS nee J v. RCS

    Citation
    TLS nee J v. RCS
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC1637/2012

    The court was satisfied arrangements for the children’s welfare had been made and were satisfactory because substantial family assets (approximately HKD 29,680,000) were preserved by reciprocal cross-undertakings, the wife failed to demonstrate special or exceptional circumstances or real financial prejudice that would justify refusing the Section 18 declaration or delaying the decree absolute, and therefore the declaration under s18 MPPO was granted and the decree nisi should be made absolute forthwith.

  • 26 Sept 2008

    NKM nee SKM v. NGR

    Citation
    NKM nee SKM v. NGR
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC14562/2007

    Given the paramount welfare principle, the court ordered extended interim supervised access on a fixed schedule and refused overnight staying access until the father satisfactorily demonstrates no excessive drinking and that his accommodation is suitable; access is to be supervised and progressively increased with assistance of the Social Welfare Officer.

  • 28 Mar 2007

    LEUNG v. SHENG

    Citation
    LEUNG v. SHENG
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC13188/2006

    Short, regular, supervised contact was ordered because the children had not seen their father for about a year, the older child expressed fear but would not overcome it without opportunity to build a relationship, and supervised twice‑monthly two‑hour sessions were judged most likely to protect the children's welfare while facilitating rebuilding of the parent‑child relationship.