Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Access/visitation

  • 27 Apr 2026

    ZZ v. LX

    Citation
    [2026] HKCA 868
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAMP283/2023

    Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds amounted to challenges to the Judge's factual findings without demonstrating they were plainly wrong or involved a palpable error; the Judge applied correct legal principles, appropriately preferred and adopted Social Welfare Reports and PD v KWW as the leading authority on joint custody, and there was no reasonable prospect of success or other sufficient interest of justice to warrant an appeal.

  • 17 Sept 2025

    YCR also known as CRY v. YSJ nee SJE

    Citation
    [2025] HKFC 157
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCJA2423/2018

    Leave to appeal dismissed because applicant failed to demonstrate an arguable appeal with reasonable prospects of success; the judge's discretionary relocation decision, evidence assessments and welfare balancing were within the permissible ambit of judicial discretion, no procedural impropriety or appearance of bias established, and post‑judgment materials did not amount to a material change warranting reconsideration.

  • 26 May 2025

    YCR also known as CRY v. YSJ nee SJE

    Citation
    [2025] HKFC 96
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCJA2423/2018

    Relocation was permitted because on the balance of probabilities the mother's application was genuine and realistic, and permitting relocation better served the paramount welfare of the children—most critically the elder child’s diagnosed learning disabilities for which evidence (psychoeducational report and corroborating materials) showed a materially greater and more sustainable level of support and options in Kelowna; detriment to the father was mitigated by generous access provisions, remote contact, a parenting coordinator and a shared cost order for one annual trip.

  • 28 Feb 2025

    IB v. MCR

    Citation
    [2025] HKFC 42
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC10128/2017

    Grant leave for the child to relocate to Zurich because, after a holistic welfare balancing exercise with the child's best interests paramount, the mother is the child's primary and sole carer, is better placed to support the child's diagnosed learning difficulties and emotional needs during daily life and school adjustment; the proposed Zurich school environment (IM) and smaller class setting better fit the child's needs; the child's expressed preference for Zurich is given due weight; the father's proposed schools in Los Angeles are likely to be overwhelming and his capacity as sole daily c…

  • 14 Oct 2024

    RM (aka RH) v. SRM

    Citation
    [2024] HKFC 189
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC7451/2016

    Although the mothers application was genuine and her plan realistic, the court refused relocation because L is presently well settled in Hong Kong, doing well at school, and the Social Investigation Officer recommended he remain; Ls wishes were given little weight due to immaturity and fluctuation; the overall welfare balancing showed no net benefit from relocating and potential detriment to the established relationship and stability with the father.

  • 17 Jul 2024

    TKY v. YSGA

    Citation
    [2024] HKCA 689
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAMP37/2024

    Leave to appeal refused because the father's grounds did not demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success: the judge lawfully and properly exercised discretion in structuring care and access, considered relevant matters including SIO recommendations and disruption to children's routine, did not take into account irrelevant matters or exhibit gender bias, and the access and e-access orders fell within the permissible ambit of judicial discretion.

  • 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.

  • 7 Feb 2024

    劉 對 盧

    Citation
    [2024] HKFC 80
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC12463/2018

    Court refused the father's application and maintained the existing arrangement: mother retains care and control of both children and guardianship remains joint. Decision rested on the children's best interests as informed by social welfare reports and the children's expressed wishes, superior living conditions with mother, the importance of preserving sibling unity, the son's aversion to staying at the grandparents' home (including concerns about uncle's long-term mental illness), and the father's persistent use of coarse language and lack of insight which adversely affected his relationship…

  • 11 Jan 2024

    王 對 万

    Citation
    [2024] HKFC 8
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP72/2019

    Applying Cap.13 s3 and the guiding factors in Payne, the court found relocation to Shenzhen to be in the child's best interests because father is the established primary carer, the relocation plan is feasible (suitable housing, supportive step‑mother, practical cross‑border access), social work reports recommended approval subject to school place confirmation, and the mother's relationship with the child can be maintained by defined visitation and daily electronic contact; accordingly father retains care and control and relocation is approved with specified conditions.

  • 15 Nov 2023

    LDL also known as L, DS v. F, S

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 227
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP226/2021

    Applying the paramount welfare principle and the Payne/SMM framework, the court found the children were settled in Hong Kong, expressed a clear wish to remain, and benefited from stability, schooling and family life there; the mother’s proposals were uncertain and linked to further relocation to Europe, risking repeated uprooting; the Social Welfare Officer’s recommendation and the children’s wishes carried substantive weight; accordingly returning the children to the Philippines was not in their best interests and the relocation application was dismissed, with care and control to the father…