Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Non‑molestation order

  • 5 Jan 2026

    LL v. GR

    Citation
    [2026] HKFC 6
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP220/2024

    On the balance of probabilities the evidence did not establish that the Father's conduct met the threshold of molestation: the Tin Hau incident was a one-off grabbing without evidence of intent to harm, the medical letter was unreliable hearsay from the Mother, there was no pattern of family violence, and mere attendance at public places or school did not constitute molestation or justify ouster; therefore the summons must be dismissed.

  • 30 Jun 2023

    WSSA v. SYH

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 125
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC4633/2020

    Applying the apparent bias test the judge examined each ground (D1–D7) and found the impugned orders and directions were lawful case management decisions based on material evidence (expert reports, social welfare memo, Official Solicitor concerns) rather than indications of bias; vacating the trial and interim orders were justified to protect the children and manage court resources; the recusal summons therefore failed and costs were awarded to the Petitioner.

  • 10 Jan 2023

    JWH v. TSM

    Citation
    [2023] HKCA 12
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAMP138/2022

    Extension of time was refused because the applicant's delay was substantial and unexplained by ignorance of rules, the proposed grounds lacked any real prospect of success as the judge's injunction decision was within the generous ambit of discretion and not plainly wrong, and the proposed fresh evidence did not meet Ladd v Marshall; accordingly the renewed application for leave to appeal out of time was dismissed and costs awarded to the respondent.

  • 30 Mar 2022

    M,B v. S,S

    Citation
    [2022] HKFC 72
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP30/2021

    The mother’s evidence was accepted as truthful, the father repeatedly contacted and approached the mother with threats and coercive demands, and there was minimal prospect of cooperative decision‑making between the parties; accordingly sole custody and sole care and control were necessary for the children’s best interests, limited supervised in‑person access at a specialist co‑parenting centre plus regular facilitated video contact were ordered, the non‑molestation order was continued and an authorization of arrest attached and extended for six months to protect the mother and children.

  • 19 May 2020

    HKK v. HCM

    Citation
    [2020] HKFC 112
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC23/2018

    The court could not reliably determine, on the affidavits alone, what the likely outcome at a full hearing would have because key incidents were disputed and oral evidence was absent; settlement by undertaking on a no-admission basis left neither party as clear winner of the contested facts, so ordinarily there should be no order as to costs of the summons. However, because the Father insisted on attending the listed hearing during the court closure period instead of consenting to paper disposal as proposed by the Mother, the court exercised its discretion to order the Father to bear the cost…

  • 20 Jan 2020

    SLH (nee N) v. GAH

    Citation
    [2020] HKFC 29
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC16058/2016

    Applying the welfare principle the court found sole custody and sole care and control to the mother was necessary because meaningful joint custody was unrealistic given the father's documented behavioural instability, lack of sustained engagement and non-compliance with treatment; leave for the two older boys to attend the specified New Zealand boarding school and for the mother to relocate permanently to New Zealand from 1 July 2020 was granted because the relocation was genuine, feasible, in the children’s best interests and did not amount to an unjustifiable impediment to the father's abil…

  • 28 Feb 2018

    YCKS v. MPKC

    Citation
    [2018] HKFC 25
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC8480/2015

    Sole custody, care and control granted to the mother as joint custody was not workable due to a sustained history of domestic violence, entrenched communication breakdown and the children’s expressed unwillingness to see the father; limited, defined access for the father ordered for protection of the children’s best interests.

  • 23 Feb 2017

    NAV v. JTMW

    Citation
    NAV v. JTMW
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC4191/2012

    Sole custody, care and control of the two children is granted to the father (respondent JTMW) as being in the children's best interests on the evidence of social work and clinical reports and the children's consistent views; direct physical access is inappropriate at present and the mother (NAV) is limited to indirect electronic contact (two emails per week plus occasional electronic cards) with supervision and monitoring by Social Welfare Department for 24 months; temporary holiday removal arrangement (trips up to 14 days, no more than 4 trips per year) is continued; expired Country A passpo…

  • 15 Apr 2016

    LAU HANG PING v. CHOW YUN NIN

    Citation
    LAU HANG PING v. CHOW YUN NIN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1067/2013

    The High Court adjourned the action sine die because the contested questions about the origin of the purchase funds and the enforceability of the 2011 agreement are ancillary relief issues more appropriately resolved in the Family Court where three rounds of Form Es and ancillary relief claims are pending; the Family Court retains jurisdiction despite post-decree delay.

  • 30 Jun 2015

    NAV v. JTMW

    Citation
    NAV v. JTMW
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC4191/2012

    The petitioner's conduct in seeking a psychologist expert at a very late stage, without prior indication and effectively as a fishing expedition to rebut the social welfare officer, was unreasonable in the conduct of litigation and justifies an adverse costs order for that part; the immigration expert claim was inadmissible on law and, although late, did not attract the same adverse costs consequence; accordingly apportionment of costs was ordered (2/3 psychologist; 1/3 immigration) and the order nisi varied to require the petitioner to bear costs as apportioned.