Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Child custody and access

Legal area

Court

21 Mar 2023

王對陳

Citation

[2023] HKCA 372
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP222/2022

Leave to appeal on all four writs was refused because the applications either were significantly out of time without satisfactory explanation, or entirely lacked coherent, legally arguable grounds, or sought to challenge interlocutory case‑management orders now superseded by a final judgment; accordingly there was no reasonable prospect of success and no basis to grant leave. Costs were awarded to the successful party and directed to be assessed on a short written timetable.
19 Aug 2022

WSSA v. SYH

Citation

[2022] HKFC 174
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC4633/2020

Leave to appeal was refused because the appellant had himself sought and achieved the comprehensive adjournment in his Recusal Summons, the impugned orders were a lawful exercise of case management within the judge's discretion given the Official Solicitor's role and outstanding expert evidence, the grounds lacked a reasonable prospect of success, and the interests of justice did not favor granting leave.
22 Feb 2021

NPYJ v. SMRC

Citation

[2021] HKCA 183
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP255/2020

Leave to appeal was refused because the judge lawfully and proactively exercised her wide case management discretion after giving the parties prior notice and opportunities to nominate joint experts; the appointment of a government clinical psychologist was within ordinary practice and competency, the Father's grounds were unparticularised and without reasonable prospect of success, and the high threshold for interfering with case management was not met.
27 Oct 2020

LCH v. WPSN

Citation

[2020] HKFC 219
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC1936/2020

The court found the 2nd Interim Order was a short-term, pragmatic response based solely on objective factors (geographic locations and resumption of physical school attendance), that contested evidential matters had not been and were not relied upon, and that the mother's grounds did not show a reasonable prospect of success under s.63A DCO; accordingly leave to appeal and the application for stay were dismissed.
14 Jun 2019

榮對陳

Citation

[2019] HKFC 150
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC9701/2017

Applying s.7 factors, the court found both parties have comparable earning capacity and current incomes sufficient to meet their own post-separation needs; applicant's expenses were assessed as overstated and capable of reasonable reduction; respondent already bears the child's full living costs which effectively offsets his nominal surplus. On that basis the court concluded respondent is not required to pay periodic spousal maintenance and dismissed the applicant's claim.
3 Aug 2018

AC v. MFHJ

Citation

[2018] HKFC 127
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC17626/2012

There has been a material change in circumstances. The court suspended paragraph 1 of the 30 July 2014 maintenance order from April 2016 to December 2017, varied ongoing child maintenance to HKD5,800 per month from 1 October 2016, ordered respondent to repay arrears of HKD46,400 (Jan–Aug 2018) by 24 monthly instalments, dismissed the petitioner's application for an increase, dismissed the respondent's refund and damages applications, and apportioned costs as ordered.
14 Sept 2017

GM=SA ALSO KNOWN AS DG, M-S v. DMP-J

Citation

GM=SA ALSO KNOWN AS DG, M-S v. DMP-J
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1052/2017

Leave to appeal was refused because the proper procedure to challenge alleged non-disclosure in the negotiation of consent orders is a fresh action to set them aside rather than an appeal given central factual disputes, and there was no reasonable prospect of success in setting aside the decree nisi because the marriage was plainly at an end; accordingly leave was refused and no order as to costs was made.
14 Nov 2016

LYAG v. YSG (YX)

Citation

LYAG v. YSG (YX)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP802/2016

Leave to appeal was refused because the Judge lawfully exercised case management discretion: the two unsolicited letters were not court‑filed expert reports, were partisan and non‑compliant with the formal requirements for expert evidence (Order 38 and the Code), and disclosure raised consent/confidentiality issues; Dr Hung's report exceeded the express court direction and relied on improper input, so removal from the court file was within the Judge's discretion; the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success under the statutory test.
16 Feb 2009

MJP v. JWP

Citation

MJP v. JWP
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC9154/2008

On a broad‑brush assessment of needs and means the husband was ordered to pay interim maintenance totalling HK$41,500 per month (HK$26,500 to the wife and HK$5,000 for each of the three children), with the husband to continue paying the children’s school fees (HK$17,430 per month); the calculation reflected allowed personal and general expenses for both parties and an expectation that the husband's cohabiting partner contribute to some shared costs.
12 Sept 2007

H v. H

Citation

H v. H
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC1895/2007

Hong Kong was the forum with the most real and substantial connection because parties lived in Hong Kong for the majority of the marriage, both are Hong Kong permanent residents, the children live and are schooled in Hong Kong and principal assets and companies are located and investigable here; the Husband failed to prove Germany was clearly or distinctly more appropriate and the Wife would suffer substantial juridical and personal disadvantage (including restriction of financial claims under German law and hardship regarding children) if a stay were granted, therefore the stay was refused.