Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Residence

  • 15 Sept 2005

    TO KIN WAH v. TUEN MUN DISTRICT OFFICER AND OTHERS

    Citation
    TO KIN WAH v. TUEN MUN DISTRICT OFFICER AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV358/2004

    The judge acted within his discretion in finding the appellant impecunious and in ordering security for costs of HK$700,000 because there was a real risk the respondents would be unable to recover their costs given outstanding adverse costs orders and the appellant lacked readily available assets; the extension of time was considered but the merits did not favor the appellant and the security order did not amount to unlawful stifling of the appeal.

  • 24 May 2002

    D v. W

    Citation
    D v. W
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP1953/2002

    The court made interim residence and access orders because, on balance, separating the parents for the short interim period and regulating access would best protect the children's welfare; the orders struck a balance between minimizing disruption and ensuring substantial contact with the mother, subject to parties' undertakings and practical exceptions.

  • 28 Aug 1996

    G v. G

    Citation
    G v. G
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC8726/1995

    On the facts the Husband retained sufficient and continuing connections with Hong Kong at the date of the petition (HK identity card and employment visa, HK company and bank accounts, valuable HK property, frequency and duration of stays, intention and conduct indicating ability and readiness to return), therefore the Court had jurisdiction under s3(c) of the Matrimonial Causes Ordinance; the Husband's summons to dismiss for want of jurisdiction was dismissed.

  • 21 Mar 1991

    HAROLD ALBERT NORCROSS v. REGISTRAR OF THE SUPERME COURT

    Citation
    HAROLD ALBERT NORCROSS v. REGISTRAR OF THE SUPERME COURT
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP3606/1990

    Applicant is resident within the meaning of s.4 of the Jury Ordinance despite not being exclusively resident; the Registrar was correct to refuse removal under s.12, but the Court has power under s.28(1)(b) to grant general exemption where jury service would cause inordinate inconvenience — on the facts the applicant's pattern of residence and travel constituted such cause, so general exemption and removal from the common jurors list are warranted.