31 Mar 2025
The court held that despite unresolved ancillary relief and problematical financial provision, the arrangements for the child's welfare are the best that can be devised in the circumstances and a Section 18 declaration was proper; therefore the Decree Nisi was made absolute and the father's opposition did not raise any new substantive matter to prevent that order.
7 Jan 2025
Given the paramountcy of the child's best interests, the court accepted the mother's undertakings and found no reason to require obtaining a Singapore mirror order prior to relocation; to avoid further delay and to facilitate the child's integration, the 13 December 2024 order was varied so the mother may relocate with the child while pursuing the mirroring process thereafter.
24 Apr 2023
On the balance of the welfare factors the court concluded relocation to Singapore with Father is in the children's best interests because Father demonstrated financial capacity and concrete education arrangements (including a reserved school place), presented a detailed and realistic transition plan addressing emotional and language needs, was committed to co‑parenting and mirror/supervision measures, whereas Mother lacked stable income, relied on uncertain family support for substantial educational costs, had not facilitated meaningful contact and there was real risk of impaired relationship…
8 Feb 2023
Husband was found to be aware of the proceedings and chose not to participate; he was debarred from filing further evidence under the Unless Order. In the absence of challenge and updated disclosure from H, the Court accepted and adjusted the wife’s Form E figures, included school fees in maintenance, and ordered H to pay monthly maintenance of $13,300 to each child into their Danske (Dansk) Bank accounts from 1 March 2023 until age 18 or completion of full‑time tertiary education, with annual inflation adjustment of 3.8% and a Section 18 declaration to issue.
14 Oct 2020
Applying the Guardianship of Minors Ordinance and the Payne guidance, the court found the Mother's relocation plan genuine and realistic, the Father's opposition genuine but the detriment finely balanced, and the Social Welfare Officer’s reports and the child's expressed mature wish decisive. It was therefore in the child's best interests to permit permanent relocation to Canada with the Mother as sole carer, subject to ordered access arrangements and financial provision; relocation deferred until no earlier than 28 December 2020 to minimize disruption and allow immigration processing.
12 Dec 2019
Leave granted: judge concluded permanent relocation to Michigan with the father is in the children's best interests based on education prospects (IB school availability), superior housing and hands‑on care, concerns over mother's supervision, the older child's expressed views, and subject to conditions (mirror order in Michigan, school enrolment evidence, father undertakings).
3 Aug 2018
The judge found that although the mother's delay in withdrawing the petition was unfortunate, her conduct did not amount to unreasonable litigation conduct sufficient to depart from the usual position in child-related matters; therefore no order as to costs was made in respect of the order dated 9 April 2018, with costs to be taxed party and party if not agreed and the mother's costs to be taxed under Legal Aid Regulations.
18 Aug 2017
Applying the Payne discipline and weighing the paramount welfare of C, the court found the mother's application genuine and realistic, accepted Social Welfare and clinical psychologist assessments that relocation with safeguards would better C's overall welfare, and concluded that relocation to Cyprus at end of August 2017 was in C's best interests. Supervised access must continue for two years (review when C is 14) conducted by a professional nanny agency in Hong Kong or Cyprus unless parties agree a suitable third party. Steps to obtain a mirror order in Cyprus should be taken with costs sp…
2 Jun 2017
The removal was wrongful under Article 3; the mother failed on the balance of probabilities to establish a grave risk under Article 13(1)(b) because the agreed undertakings, additional protective measures and available Australian support (including visa discretion and legal aid) adequately mitigate the alleged risks, therefore the court ordered the child's return to Australia with the mother subject to specified undertakings and conditions.
8 Sept 2016
Recital K was discharged because the child is settled in Australia and it is not feasible or in the child's best interests to require return to Hong Kong without resolution of Australian proceedings; applications to vary Recitals D and H were dismissed because the education and mirror-order issues are the subject of ongoing Australian proceedings and the existing undertakings remain necessary to preserve the consent order and jurisdictional safeguards.