Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Non-removal order

Legal area

Court

16 Dec 2025

H v. W

Citation

[2025] HKFC 203
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCJA350/2021

On balance and guided by the best interests of the children, the court allowed school trips and limited holiday removals by either parent but refused to require the mother's prior approval for every holiday; instead the court imposed a structured notice, documentation and affidavit regime (with specified timeframes, travel particulars, insurance, daily photographs and accompaniment) to protect school attendance, enable verification at immigration and mitigate abduction risk, giving weight to the social investigation, the children's expressed wishes and the father's evidence of intent.
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…
15 Nov 2023

LDL also known as L, DS v. F, S

Citation

[2023] HKFC 227
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMP226/2021

Applying the paramount welfare principle and the Payne/SMM framework, the court found the children were settled in Hong Kong, expressed a clear wish to remain, and benefited from stability, schooling and family life there; the mother’s proposals were uncertain and linked to further relocation to Europe, risking repeated uprooting; the Social Welfare Officer’s recommendation and the children’s wishes carried substantive weight; accordingly returning the children to the Philippines was not in their best interests and the relocation application was dismissed, with care and control to the father…
22 Aug 2022

SWTQ v. WE also known as CWC

Citation

[2022] HKFC 177
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC1135/2022

The court has jurisdiction under Cap.179 s.48D(2) and Cap.192 s.19(1); the child was habitually resident in Hong Kong; no grave risk of physical or psychological harm was established and the child, aged five, is too young to have a determinative objection; on the paramount consideration of the child's welfare the return and non-removal order was necessary and justified; therefore the application for return and non-removal was granted.
13 May 2022

MY v. FT

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1407
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP500/2022

The Court had jurisdiction under s15 CACO because Hague-related proceedings had been commenced; the Mother's evidence gave reasonable grounds to believe the named relatives and close associates either held information as to the child's whereabouts or could reasonably obtain it from the Father; ex parte relief was justified by urgency and appropriate notice avenues were identified; accordingly a location order compelling specified disclosure within 24 hours and endorsing a penal notice was granted to facilitate the child's return and related proceedings.
3 Dec 2018

C, OKA v. R, MTP

Citation

[2018] HKFC 218
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMP180/2017

Leave to relocate was granted because the father’s application was genuine and realistic, he is the primary carer with capacity to provide for the child in Japan, social welfare recommended joint custody with father having care and control, and the child’s best interests weighed in favour of relocation provided detailed access safeguards (breathalyzer testing, phased overnight stays, scheduled holidays, remote contact and reciprocal travel) were imposed.
13 Apr 2018

COKA v. RMTP

Citation

[2018] HKFC 50
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMP180/2017

Starting from the parties' shared premise that each should bear 50% of the child's expenses, the court calculated the child's immediate reasonable needs against the mother's demonstrable income and the father's precarious finances. The court adjusted the father's notional housing cost and excluded discretionary items, concluded the mother could afford a substantial contribution, and fixed interim maintenance at HK$8,000 per month from 1 May 2018 for three months. The court refused to backdate the order due to potential intolerable burden on the mother. Pending receipt of testing/reporting and…
24 Sept 2015

IT v. LWYG

Citation

IT v. LWYG
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC18087/2013

The court varied the parties' consent order by allocating joint custody with care and control to the mother and by specifying detailed access and holiday arrangements based on the child's welfare: Christmas/New Year alternated (mother odd years, father even years with limited exception), father to have Chinese New Year eve to 3rd day, Easter to be divided equally on a rotating year basis, summer split on a 14-day rotation pro rata, specific public holidays to be alternated with some listed to father in 2015/2016, Father to have Father's Day weekend and Mother Mother's Day weekend, third‑party…
24 Sept 2015

LWYG v. IT

Citation

LWYG v. IT
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMP276/2013

Applying the paramount welfare principle, the court varied the parties' consent order to grant joint custody with care and control to the mother while prescribing a detailed, practicable alternating timetable for holidays, birthdays, single public holidays and parental day weekends to ensure the child maintains relationships with both parents; the court also restrained removal from Hong Kong without leave and required a progress report in nine months.