Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Adoption
  • 31 Jul 2025

    DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE v. LPK

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 3344
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAD34/2023

    The court found that sibling relationships among these seven abandoned children did not constitute a protectable family life under BOR14/BOR19 because there were no demonstrable close personal ties or commitment; BOR14 privacy was engaged by the lack of sibling contact but the Arrangement and freeing orders were prescribed by law, pursued the legitimate aim of safeguarding each child’s best interests, and were proportionate in view of clinical assessments and practical constraints; accordingly freeing orders for the 6th and 7th children and adoption orders for the 4th and 5th children were ju…

  • 31 Jul 2025

    DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE v. LPK

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 3344
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAD33/2023

    BOR14 protection of family among siblings was not engaged because there were no demonstrable interests, commitments or close personal ties; BOR14 privacy was engaged but the Arrangement and freeing orders were lawful (prescribed by statute) and proportionate because adoption/placement decisions were demonstrably taken in each child’s best interests on available evidence (including clinical assessments) and the restriction on sibling contact is justified until co‑adoption by same family/families becomes realistic.

  • 30 Apr 2024

    HC formerly known as HWH v. WYH

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFI 1157
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMC3/2023

    A child born by surrogacy may be a 'child of the family' under s2 MPPO if the commissioning parents have treated the child as a child of their family; therefore the court (Family Court or CFI) has jurisdiction under s19(1) MPPO to make custody and maintenance orders for such children without a parental order or adoption order being in place, subject to protecting any third party rights under s19(2).

  • 10 Jan 2018

    LILY CHEUNG v. CHEUNG WAI KWOK AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2018] HKCA 9
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV154/2015

    On the evidence the court was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that an adoption ceremony required by Chinese custom had occurred and the contemporaneous and testimonial evidence as to the alleged 1949 marriage and continuing spousal relationship was inconsistent and insufficient; accordingly both appeals fail and earlier declarations (that LTM was the lawfully adopted daughter) stand.

  • 3 Jul 2015

    WONG KWONG YIU v. MOK HING CHUNG

    Citation
    WONG KWONG YIU v. MOK HING CHUNG
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAP10/2012

    The court exercised its discretion to vary the costs orders: in HCAP 8/2010 costs follow the event and are payable by Wong Kwong Yiu (to be taxed if not agreed); in HCAP 10/2012 MOK is ordered to pay 75% of Wong Kwong Yiu's costs (to be taxed if not agreed); MOK's costs are to be taxed in accordance with the legal aid regulations; the apportionment reflects relative success on the issues, overlap and some duplication of expert evidence and parties' conduct.

  • 18 Sept 2013

    ZHANG RUI HUA AND ANOTHER v. WANG LAN AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    ZHANG RUI HUA AND ANOTHER v. WANG LAN AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAP13/2010

    The court found on the balance of credible witness testimony and corroborating evidence (including DNA) that the will dated 2 February 2005 was prepared and executed by the deceased with testamentary capacity, that the presumption of revocation arising from loss of the original will had been rebutted, and that Chuan-yao is the deceased's natural son; accordingly judgment was entered for the plaintiffs and the estate ordered to be administered in accordance with that will.

  • 26 May 2011

    LING YEE KUI v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

    Citation
    LING YEE KUI v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAP4/2010

    A step-child is not within the meaning of 'child' or 'issue' under the Intestates' Estates Ordinance Cap.73; the words must be given their plain and natural meaning (a person born of the deceased), and nothing in the IEO's context or legislative history requires a broader meaning; expressio unius est exclusio alterius and the existence/former existence of specific provisions confirm exclusion.

  • 20 Nov 2007

    WRW v. MW

    Citation
    WRW v. MW
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC8252/2005

    On the balance of probabilities the court found there was no evidence that the petitioner treated K as a child of the family: the presence of the petitioner's name on the birth certificate was not conclusive, the respondent's affidavits contained no evidence of specific treatment of K as a child of the family, and the petitioner's consistent financial support to the respondent's extended family explained the circumstances; accordingly the court declared K not a child of the family and awarded costs to the petitioner.

  • 31 Jul 2006

    KHAN KAMRAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

    Citation
    KHAN KAMRAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL48/2005

    The Director's refusal was lawful because, on the material before him, there was insufficient evidence to establish the requisite dependency (including compelling emotional dependence) or that the sponsor could financially maintain the applicant; the Director did not fail to take into account material considerations and the decision was within the bounds of reasonable discretion under a strict immigration policy.

  • 20 Jul 2006

    HO WAI YIN AND OTHERS v. CHENG SUET YEE

    Citation
    HO WAI YIN AND OTHERS v. CHENG SUET YEE
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAP18/2003

    The application to determine the construction of s.2(2)(c) separately was refused because the question whether informally adopted persons fall within that provision depends materially on expert evidence as to Chinese law and custom and on factual matters best determined at trial; therefore the court exercised its discretion under O.14A r.1 / O.33 r.3 to refuse the separate determination and to require progression to trial with directions.