Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Protective measures

Legal area

Court

20 Feb 2025

J v. Q AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 632
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2563/2024

On the facts and contemporaneous communications the court found the child had not lost habitual residence in Shanghai by 3 August 2024; the mother’s Hague application was dismissed for lack of habitual residence in Japan (alternatively, consent would have succeeded); in wardship the child’s welfare required prompt return to Shanghai with detailed protective measures and supervised transition, return ordered by 25 February 2025.
9 Jul 2024

ELITE CONSORTIUM LTD AND OTHERS v. YIM WAN POR AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1783
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA66/2022

Applying s14AA(4) and established authorities, the judge formed a broad‑brush preliminary view that the defendants' appeal against the discovery order was not reasonably arguable; consequently leave to appeal and an interim stay were refused and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.
7 May 2024

ELITE CONSORTIUM LTD AND OTHERS v. YIM WAN POR AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1780
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA66/2022

The defendants failed to demonstrate an arguable ground of appeal with reasonable prospect of success; the five classes of documents are prima facie relevant and should be disclosed; no evidence of irreparable prejudice was shown and protective measures can mitigate any prejudice; therefore the discretion to grant a stay was not engaged and the stay must be refused.
3 Jun 2021

FR v. MF

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1557
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP532/2021

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the children were habitually resident in France immediately prior to retention, the mother's unilateral retention on 17 February 2021 was wrongful under Article 3, the grave risk exception under Article 13(b) was not made out, the gateway for the children's objections was satisfied but, exercising its discretion and balancing best interests, the court ordered return to France subject to specified protective measures and undertakings; return to occur within 28 days.
19 May 2017

YYW v. HWW

Citation

YYW v. HWW
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP409/2017

Court found Father had rights of custody under Korean law and the Children were habitually resident in Korea at removal, making the removal wrongful, but on the balance of evidence the Father by prolonged silence, failure to pursue immediate remedies and conduct would have led the Mother to believe he acquiesced in the Children remaining in Hong Kong; additionally the SWO found the Children, particularly the son, objected to return and the grave risk asserted by the Mother was not proven to the requisite degree and could be addressed by protective measures; exercising the court's discretion t…
2 Sept 2013

M v. T

Citation

M v. T
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1860/2013

The court found the mother failed to establish acquiescence because the father's conduct lacked a clear and unequivocal acceptance of wrongful retention and his delay was explicable by attempts at reconciliation and practical constraints; the mother failed to establish a grave risk because the incidents alleged did not demonstrate direct or persistent risk to the child and proposed protective measures (accommodation arrangements, generous access, and the father's undertaking not to prosecute) sufficiently mitigated concerns; accordingly the child must be returned to the Netherlands with speci…
10 Dec 2001

LCHY v. CWF & OTHERS

Citation

LCHY v. CWF & OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP5231/2001

The Court of First Instance is bound by the Court of Appeal in D and G: Article 13(b) must be approached in two stages — first determine whether allegations establish a grave risk that cannot be ignored, and if so then exercise the residual discretion considering demonstrable protective measures; D and G is not per incuriam and does not effect a reversal of the burden of proof.

Hong Kong Case Law

J v. Q AND ANOTHER

ELITE CONSORTIUM LTD AND OTHERS v. YIM WAN POR AND OTHERS

ELITE CONSORTIUM LTD AND OTHERS v. YIM WAN POR AND OTHERS

FR v. MF

YYW v. HWW

M v. T

LCHY v. CWF & OTHERS