Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Wrongful removal

  • 15 Dec 2025

    SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE (in his capacity as the Central Authority designated under the Child Abduction and Custody Ordinance, Cap. 512) v. SK AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 6345
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP1946/2025

    The Court held the Mother is not entitled to state or consular immunity because the relocation of the children to Hong Kong was not shown to be an act performed pursuant to Czech sovereign orders and the Consulate did not support an immunity claim; the removal was wrongful because the Czech judgment recognized joint custody and the Mother's temporary sole physical custody did not authorize international relocation; the Mother failed to prove any grave risk or intolerable situation on return; accordingly the children must be returned to the Czech Republic and the Mother must bear travel expens…

  • 13 May 2022

    T v. L

    Citation
    [2022] HKCFI 1418
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP376/2022

    Court found on the balance of probabilities that the United Kingdom was the child's habitual residence immediately before removal; the mother's removal on 7 March 2022 was wrongful because it breached the father's custody rights; there was insufficient evidence of the father's consent or subsequent acquiescence; the mother failed to establish a grave risk of harm or that return would be intolerable; the child's views were of limited weight given age and immaturity; accordingly the court ordered the child's return to the UK subject to the father's undertakings.

  • 10 Sept 2021

    C v. R

    Citation
    [2021] HKCFI 2706
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP1080/2021

    HD was habitually resident in Hong Kong immediately before removal; the father held and was exercising rights of custody (including interim access and ongoing proceedings for joint custody); the mother unilaterally removed HD to the UK without the father's consent or leave of the court, thereby breaching those custody rights within the meaning of Article 3; accordingly an Article 15 declaration was warranted and granted.

  • 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…

  • 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.

  • 17 Dec 2014

    LPQ v. LYW

    Citation
    LPQ v. LYW
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP2831/2014

    The Father failed to discharge the burden of proving either that the Mother consented to the permanent removal of the Children or that return would expose them to a grave risk or an intolerable situation under article 13; contemporaneous conduct and communications supported the Mother's account; absent cogent evidence about Japanese law or an established risk, the Hong Kong court must order return to the country of habitual residence so that local courts can address welfare and custody issues; accordingly the application for return was allowed.

  • 11 Jul 2002

    SC v. LW

    Citation
    SC v. LW
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP1824/2002

    Judge found the father had acquiesced to the initial wrongful removal by virtue of his inactivity and conduct between April and November 2001 (seven months), thereby abandoning his Convention remedy; the mother's December 2001 visit did not restore the father's rights and the application for return was dismissed as inappropriate in the child's interests.