Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Ouster 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.

  • 27 Oct 2006

    P v. L

    Citation
    P v. L
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC3861/2002

    The court found that while the husbands behaviour warranted protection for the wife by a non-molestation order restraining assault or threats, the conduct did not justify the draconian remedy of an ouster order. The wife's covert re-occupation of the master bedroom and delay in pursuing the ouster application undermined her case; the husband's incidents were better characterised as emotional outbursts partly explainable by provocation and hearing impairment, so exclusion was not justified.

  • 26 Sept 2006

    P v. C

    Citation
    P v. C
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC9655/2005

    The court found sufficient past actual bodily harm and ongoing harassment to justify replacing the undertakings with a formal non-molestation injunction against the husband; the husband was ordered excluded from the matrimonial home for three months (with seven days to vacate) because he could reasonably obtain alternative accommodation, Madam C could not legally be ousted under current Hong Kong law, and a power of arrest and penal notice were attached to the injunction; costs awarded to the petitioner to be taxed under Legal Aid regulations.

  • 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.

  • 5 Jul 1994

    CHAN CHUN HON v. CHAN LAM LAI BING SHIRLEY

    Citation
    CHAN CHUN HON v. CHAN LAM LAI BING SHIRLEY
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV43/1994

    The trial judge properly applied s.3 of the Domestic Violence Ordinance, took into account conduct, needs, resources and the child's welfare, and on the evidence (including social welfare report showing the child was mentally distressed) was not plainly wrong to grant the non-molestation and ouster orders; the appellate court will not disturb the exercise of discretion absent error of law or a plainly wrong conclusion.