Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Rights of custody

  • 9 Aug 2018

    RS v. BK also known as MBK

    Citation
    [2018] HKCFI 1814
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP796/2018

    The court found on the balance of probabilities that the father retained rights of custody immediately before removal and the mother's removal of the child to Hong Kong was wrongful under Article 3. The mother failed to prove consent by the father or that the Article 13(1)(b) grave risk exception applied. Although the child objected to return and had sufficient maturity (Article 13(2) gateway established), the court exercised its discretion to order return because the child's best interests and available protective measures favored return; accordingly the child was ordered returned to Singapo…

  • 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…

  • 5 Jun 2015

    M v. E

    Citation
    M v. E
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV75/2015

    The Consent Order (homologated by the Brazilian court) together with Brazilian law and the declaration of the Brazilian Central Authority conferred on the Mother rights of custody in the Convention sense including the right to determine the children's place of residence; the Father's unilateral removal to Hong Kong was wrongful; the Father failed to discharge the burden to prove acquiescence under Article 13(a) or that return would expose the children to a grave risk under Article 13(b); accordingly the return order was to be upheld and the appeal dismissed.

  • 31 Jan 2013

    EW v. LP

    Citation
    EW v. LP
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP1605/2011

    Court found on the balance of probabilities that the father held and was exercising joint rights of custody under Slovak law and that the mother's removal/retention of the child was wrongful; the father's protracted pre‑ and post‑proceedings delay together with his words and conduct amounted to acquiescence (or, alternatively, met the Re H exception) and undermined the objective of prompt return; independently, the mother established a grave risk that summary return would place the child in an intolerable psychological situation under Article 13(b); the father's late and unsigned undertakings…

  • 19 Apr 2001

    L M v. H T S

    Citation
    L M v. H T S
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP1329/2001

    The court found on the balance of probabilities that both parents shared a settled purpose to make a new life in Germany and had taken concrete, continuing steps (five-year lease, visa renewal with right to work, school enrollment, language classes, purchases) over an appreciable period (about four and a half months) such that the child was habitually resident in Germany immediately before removal; the removal was therefore wrongful under Article 3 and, having occurred less than one year earlier, Article 12 required the child be returned forthwith.