Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Social investigation report

  • 19 Jun 2025

    FCCV v. LSY

    Citation
    [2025] HKFC 111
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP203/2020

    The court made specific access and undertaking orders (Annex A) because structured, enforceable arrangements were in the child's best interests and promoted certainty and normalization of her life; travel restrictions were lifted subject to written undertakings acknowledging Hong Kong habitual residence and commitments to return; parenting counselling and court monitoring reports were declined as counterproductive; the Mother's conduct and her solicitors' correspondence had unreasonably obstructed access and increased costs so a discounted costs order against the Mother (HK$40,000) was made n…

  • 2 May 2024

    J, S aka SSJ v. J, ICV aka ICVJ

    Citation
    [2024] HKFC 90
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC12707/2019

    The Judge dismissed the appeal because the Master’s refusal to order a SIR and SJE was a defensible case management decision not clearly wrong: the appellant failed to show those reports were necessary, relevant and sufficiently probative to justify delay; it was impractical to obtain reliable reports within the short time before trial; and the appellant’s delay in bringing the application made postponement unfair and prejudicial to the agreed relocation timetable.

  • 16 Apr 2024

    CWM v. SAS aka AS

    Citation
    [2024] HKFC 79
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC9999/2020

    Relocation to Melbourne is permitted: the application was genuine and realistic, supported by SIR/ISIR and the mother's evidence; the welfare balancing exercise favored relocation because the children will benefit from improved accommodation, education, healthcare access and family support, father's opposition was insufficiently substantiated and his conduct and non-payment of maintenance weighed against refusing; proposed access arrangements and undertakings (annual visits, daily remote contact) preserve father's relationship and offset detriment, therefore relocation is in the children's be…

  • 9 Feb 2024

    TKY v. YSGA

    Citation
    [2024] HKFC 28
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC2208/2023

    Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show any reasonable prospect of success on the pleaded grounds and there was no other reason in the interests of justice: the judge properly assessed gender considerations as non‑determinative, reasonably prioritized continuity during term time to avoid disruptive mid‑week changeovers, found the SIO and SIR unbiased, and concluded the father's access rights outside term and electronic access were reasonable in the circumstances.

  • 28 Sept 2023

    TRH v. KCS

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 202
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC8704/2023

    Although the ex parte urgency threshold was marginal, the court treated the children s welfare as decisive and ordered that access on Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday take place initially at the former matrimonial home (with the mother and maternal grandmother required to leave 15 minutes before access) and allowed the father liberty to take the children outside if they were willing; the court refused to vary its prior refusal to order therapy absent agreement and declined to impose the proposed undertakings on an ex parte basis, and made no order as to costs.

  • 7 Sept 2023

    TRH v. KCS

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 182
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC8704/2023

    Equal shared interim care on a 2-2-5-5 basis was refused because the short-term status quo favoured the mother as main carer and it would not be in the children's best interests to upset that arrangement; however, the father was granted reasonable interim access pending the Social Investigation Report with a specified access timetable starting 11 September 2023 and supervision was not ordered.

  • 31 May 2023

    BGPB v. KSW

    Citation
    [2023] HKCFI 1476
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP1922/2020

    Applying the welfare checklist and giving decisive weight to AB's educational needs, the demonstrated positive effect of increased time with the Father (Easter/Interim Order experience), the supportive findings in the Social Investigation Report and the need for immediate stability, the Court ordered the Father's proposed 2‑2‑5‑5 term‑time timetable to take effect immediately. The timetable and accessory orders best promote AB's welfare by increasing consistent parental support for schooling, reducing handovers and parental conflict, and preserving ties with the paternal family and French lan…

  • 31 May 2023

    HYK v. WLS

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 104
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCJA59/2021

    On balance, in the best interests of the children the court granted joint custody but awarded care and control to the Father to preserve stability and familiarity for children with special needs, because the Father and paternal family offered a more reliable daily regime and the Mother had missed or cancelled important medical appointments and shown inadequate practical execution; the Mother was granted defined staying, day and electronic access and a progress review in one year; SWO recommendations were considered but not adopted as final.

  • 28 Apr 2023

    LCH v. WPSN

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 79
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC1936/2020

    The court refused to award costs to either party. On the facts the mother was less than forthcoming about the timing and bringing forward of the school start date and failed to disclose material facts; the father’s abrupt refusal to return the children was understandable though imperfect. Fairness dictated no order as to costs; a costs order nisi was made to become absolute in 14 days.

  • 31 Mar 2023

    LCH v. WPSN

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 64
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC1936/2020

    On the evidence including the Social Investigation Report and children’s expressed wishes, the Petitioner pursued a hopeless and unsubstantiated bid to change both children’s schools for reasons of convenience and without demonstrable benefit to the children; his conduct (including unilateral enrolment and insincere mediation) went beyond the band of reasonable litigation in children proceedings; given his greater resources, a costs order against him was justified; accordingly Petitioner must pay Respondent’s costs of the Schooling Summons and of the costs application.