Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Non-molestation injunction

Legal area

Court

17 Nov 2021

BR also known as RB v. P

Citation

[2021] HKFC 234
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC13192/2019

Given the Respondent's repeated breaches of the injunction, his failure to file opposing affidavits or attend the reserved hearing, and the Petitioner's entitlement and legal aid status, the court exercised its discretion to order the Respondent to pay the Petitioner's costs of and arising out of the summons dated 21 July 2020 including the costs reserved on 30 July 2020, 12 October 2020 and 25 January 2021; those costs are to be taxed party and party if not agreed and the Petitioner's own costs are to be taxed under the Legal Aid Regulations.
12 Feb 2018

GKLJ v. WE also known as WFYE

Citation

[2018] HKFC 19
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC16521/2015

The court exercised its discretion and found the Father had established a real risk to the child’s physical and psychological wellbeing warranting continuation of the injunction and temporary care and control pending trial; the Mother lacked a reasonable prospect of success on the proposed grounds of appeal under s63A(2); fresh evidence was admitted in the child’s welfare interest; access supervision was relaxed based on updated welfare information but core interim protective orders remain in place.
17 Jun 2010

PYS v. CDY

Citation

PYS v. CDY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP987/2010

Leave to appeal was refused because the applications were substantially delayed, lacked a reasonable prospect of success on grounds that the impugned orders were made lawfully after full consideration (including the child's welfare), the sale of the property followed court orders and consent, and the discretionary costs and ancillary relief orders did not disclose grounds for appellate interference.
17 Jun 2010

PYS v. CDY

Citation

PYS v. CDY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3/2010

The applications for leave to appeal (including out-of-time applications) were refused because the proposed appeals lacked a realistic prospect of success, there was substantial unexplained delay, and the impugned orders were properly made in the exercise of the trial judge's discretion and in the child's best interests (including the validity of the sale under a court-approved consent order).
22 May 2009

RE PARK YOUNG SOOK

Citation

RE PARK YOUNG SOOK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL52/2009

The application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed because judicial review is not the appropriate mechanism to challenge a Family Court non-molestation injunction; the proper remedies are to apply to the Family Court to vary or discharge the injunction or to seek leave to appeal, therefore the leave application is misconceived.
30 May 2008

YLS v. TL

Citation

YLS v. TL
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC8396/2007

Custody of the three younger children was awarded to the Petitioner because the children's welfare and expressed wishes to remain with their mother, the mother's role as primary caregiver, persuasive social welfare recommendations and the history of family violence including a serious threat by the father created a real risk to welfare; the father was granted reasonable access subject to initial direct supervision and a 12-month supervision order; a non-molestation and exclusion injunction was granted restraining the father from the Petitioner's address until further order.
8 Jan 2008

LSC v. PKH

Citation

LSC v. PKH
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC4957/2006

The husband’s conduct, notably the May 30 2006 incident involving attempts to force entry with an iron rod, significant damage to the cubicle door, a threatening notice posted on the door, the obtaining of a non-molestation order and related conduct, amount to unreasonable behaviour such that the wife cannot reasonably be expected to live with him; decree nisi of divorce is granted on that ground.
6 Jun 1995

L v. T

Citation

L v. T
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC3039/1995

The court found credible evidence of repeated violent conduct and a real risk of continuing physical danger; applying s.3(2) Cap.189 and the principle in Grant v James the court continued the non-molestation injunction and granted a limited-duration ouster order because the wife’s need to reside with the children and her inability to afford repairs outweighed the husband’s alternative accommodation options.