7 Jan 2025
Given the paramountcy of the child's best interests, the court accepted the mother's undertakings and found no reason to require obtaining a Singapore mirror order prior to relocation; to avoid further delay and to facilitate the child's integration, the 13 December 2024 order was varied so the mother may relocate with the child while pursuing the mirroring process thereafter.
11 Jan 2024
Applying Cap.13 s3 and the guiding factors in Payne, the court found relocation to Shenzhen to be in the child's best interests because father is the established primary carer, the relocation plan is feasible (suitable housing, supportive step‑mother, practical cross‑border access), social work reports recommended approval subject to school place confirmation, and the mother's relationship with the child can be maintained by defined visitation and daily electronic contact; accordingly father retains care and control and relocation is approved with specified conditions.
12 Jul 2023
Exceptional circumstances existed: the respondent adopted an unreasonable and unsustainable financial stance, changed position after trial, and the petitioner has suffered significant depletion of capital risking the children's welfare; accordingly it is justifiable to depart from the usual 'no costs' rule and order the respondent to pay a substantial proportion of costs (75% of relocation costs and 50% of the variation application costs).
15 Feb 2023
Leave to appeal was refused because the judge’s findings about the petitioner’s unreasonable litigation conduct were within her evaluative judgment, supported by the record (including the 2nd PTR transcript and prior appellate findings), not plainly wrong, and the adverse costs orders were proportionate and within the judge’s discretion.
6 Apr 2022
The applicant for leave (father) failed to demonstrate any arguable case with reasonable prospects of success or any other reason in the interests of justice; the trial judge's findings on the welfare checklist, the treatment of the SWO's SIR and the ISIR, and factual credibility findings were matters of fact and within judicial discretion, not errors of law; the court is not obliged to step into the role of advocate to question witnesses to remedy report deficiencies; accordingly leave to appeal was dismissed and the interim stay set aside, leaving the Relocation Decision in force.
16 Nov 2021
Leave to appeal was refused because the respondent's proposed grounds relied on new evidence and reargument of findings already made, failed to identify an arguable basis for appeal and did not demonstrate a realistic prospect of success nor any other reason in the interests of justice to justify granting leave.
10 Aug 2021
The Court dismissed the Mother's application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal because the questions raised did not involve matters of great general or public importance nor had a reasonable prospect of success; on the merits the Court found the trial judge had plainly erred in failing to give adequate reasons and apparent due consideration to the social welfare officer's and single joint expert's recommendations, the Mother had shifted positions undermining safeguards, and there was significant uncertainty about financial arrangements and practicalities, such that permitting r…
22 Jun 2021
Relocation was refused because, on balance and having regard to the paramountcy of the child's best interests, the risks from the father's poor communication, his past conduct, the real possibility of reduced maternal contact post-relocation, and the uncertainty as to enforceability of Hong Kong orders in the PRC outweighed the asserted benefits of relocation; consequently joint custody was ordered with care and control to the mother and the father's relocation and sole care/control application dismissed.
3 Mar 2020
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success or any other interest of justice warranting appeal; the impugned decision involved a lawful exercise of discretion within its generous ambit, no demonstrable legal error or misapprehension of material fact was established, and the contested matters (documents, welfare checklist, custody arrangements, allegations of neglect) did not disclose a viable appellate ground.
15 Feb 2019
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant had not demonstrated a reasonable prospect of success and there were no other reasons in the interests of justice to hear the appeal; the trial judge's findings about preserving the status quo and reviewing the education plan were not mischaracterised so as to warrant leave.