Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Removal from jurisdiction

  • 9 May 2024

    MALKIT SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFI 1242
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL625/2019

    Leave was dismissed because the application was not made within the mandatory time limit and no explanation for the serious delay was provided, the Applicant failed to show that the Board erred in concluding there was insufficient evidence to re-open the withdrawn SCF, and the Applicant's removal from Hong Kong meant the claim was treated as withdrawn under s37ZF(1).

  • 24 Mar 2023

    SCR v. MSK

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 57
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP28/2021

    Sole custody, care and control granted to the Father because (1) the best interests of the Child require stability and the Father is able to provide a stable home environment; (2) the Child expressed a clear preference to live with the Father and has a close relationship with him; (3) MDCC and police did not establish sexual abuse and there is no evidence the Child has suffered or is at risk of harm in the Father's care; (4) the parents' relationship and entrenched mistrust make joint custody impracticable; and (5) the Mother’s visa/employment situation creates material uncertainty about her…

  • 13 May 2021

    NPYJ v. SMRC

    Citation
    [2021] HKFC 83
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC9098/2018

    The application for leave to appeal was refused because the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success: prior order already permitted out-of-jurisdiction travel so the new application was superfluous and amounted to an abuse of process, forcing travel would not be in the children's best interests, and therefore leave was denied and costs awarded to the Petitioner.

  • 25 Feb 2020

    YSYM v. LHB

    Citation
    [2020] HKFC 35
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC19025/2012

    The court refused the mother’s application to remove/relocate the children because, viewing the child’s welfare as paramount, the removal plan was not demonstrated to be realistic or secure: inadequate and uncertain childcare and fallback arrangements in Vancouver, the mother’s likely prioritisation of her own desire to leave, material risk that relocation would further damage an already poor father–children relationship given the record of unsatisfactory access, and the mother’s inability to allay concerns about immigration/job contingency; accordingly the SWO recommendation was not adopted…

  • 17 Oct 2019

    Z v. X

    Citation
    [2019] HKCFI 2627
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP1731/2019

    The father's undertakings and proposed safeguards were demonstrably inadequate and unenforceable, the evidence showed a real risk of violence and that the father had influenced Mainland authorities resulting in the mother's detention, and practical enforcement against Mainland China is unreliable; accordingly the risk of non-return and harm to the children outweighed any benefit of the trip and the application to remove the children was refused.

  • 15 Aug 2019

    PA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIRGRATION

    Citation
    [2019] HKCFI 2019
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL1668/2018

    Applicant was given reasonable notice of imminent removal (informed from 25 April 2018 and had several weeks and practical opportunities to commence proceedings); the Director's policy as set out in the LegCo Paper is lawful; removal on 18 May 2018 did not infringe the applicant's right of access to the court; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review in respect of the removal was dismissed.

  • 28 Sept 2018

    譚 對 陳

    Citation
    [2018] HKFC 166
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC4911/2017

    Given the child's six‑plus years in foster care, the limited direct parenting history of both parents, doubts over the completeness and reliability of the social welfare reports, and the father's demonstrable housing stability and evidence of better immediate suitability to provide a stable living environment, the court concluded that joint guardianship with the father having care and control and the mother having reasonable contact (including overnight) best serves the child's welfare; the arrangement must be supervised by Social Welfare Department for 12 months.

  • 22 Jan 2018

    DCB v. AB

    Citation
    [2018] HKCFI 162
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP2173/2014

    The father's summons was dismissed because it was unsupported by a filed affirmation and produced no evidence of a change in circumstances or any reason to vary the 16.05.17 Order; reports from social welfare and the Official Solicitor established that the child's welfare was being properly maintained and that it was in the child's best interests to preserve the existing residential and access arrangements.

  • 8 Dec 2014

    WTV v. WMC

    Citation
    WTV v. WMC
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP54/2014

    Given the high level of parental conflict, the mother's established primary caregiving role, and the children's best interests, the court ordered joint custody with care and control vested in the mother and structured staying access to the father for five nights every two weeks (Wednesday after school to Monday morning), subject to the father's undertaking to apply for leave for those periods; appointed a parenting coordinator; divided school holidays 50:50; required telephone/Skype contact when children are with the other parent; and prohibited removal from Hong Kong without consent or court…

  • 7 May 2014

    MB v. KMS

    Citation
    MB v. KMS
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP149/2012

    Custody of the two elder children (KMA and KAA) was granted to the respondent and leave given for them to remain in the UK because, on the evidence (notably the SIR and ISIR), the children are settled in a stable and appropriate environment in the UK with strong family support; removing them to Hong Kong would disrupt continuity and likely be detrimental; the applicant lacked concrete proposals and sufficient support to resume primary care; joint custody was impractical given high parental conflict. The respondent was ordered to provide undertakings to reside in the UK and assume parental res…