2 Aug 2023
The court refused both the application for extension of time and leave to appeal because the applicant's explanation for the delay was inadequate, the proposed grounds lacked any reasonable prospect of success, and allowing the extension would likely cause unfairness to the respondent given the nature of the family dispute and prior proceedings.
30 Jun 2023
Applying the apparent bias test the judge examined each ground (D1–D7) and found the impugned orders and directions were lawful case management decisions based on material evidence (expert reports, social welfare memo, Official Solicitor concerns) rather than indications of bias; vacating the trial and interim orders were justified to protect the children and manage court resources; the recusal summons therefore failed and costs were awarded to the Petitioner.
21 Mar 2023
Leave to appeal was refused because the applications either were significantly out of time without adequate excuse or, whether in time or not, disclosed no arguable grounds of appeal: the materials were incoherent and failed to identify any legal, factual or discretionary error; many impugned orders were interim/case‑management steps superseded by a final judgment and thus not susceptible to successful appeal; accordingly there was no real prospect of success and leave was denied with costs.
26 Jan 2022
The Father was in deliberate and continuing contempt for non-payment of maintenance and carer's allowance; that contempt materially impeded the course of justice and no other realistic and effective remedy existed. A proportionate Hadkinson order was therefore justified: the appeal and associated summons would not be heard unless the Father paid the specified outstanding sum of HKD 409,616 by 28 February 2022 and made the February 2022 monthly payments of HKD 13,726 (N) and HKD 10,000 (Mother) and continued to pay those monthly sums when due; failure to comply would result in the appeal and s…
9 Feb 2021
Because the eldest child's overseas boarding placement was arranged unilaterally without the father's express consent or court leave the father is not liable for those overseas education costs; the court discharged the original undertakings and instead ordered periodical payments payable by the respondent for the children calculated on a 50:50 basis, fixing the respondent's contribution at HK$50,000 per month from 1 March 2021, refused to increase accommodation contribution towards petitioner's mortgage, and made a nisi order as to costs (no order if made absolute in 28 days).
10 Jul 2020
The court allowed slip-rule amendments limited to correcting typographical errors (spelling of proposed experts), substituting Affirmations/Affidavits, inserting the full carpark address and amending costs wording to reflect the courts manifest intention, but refused substantive additions or new obligations (bank statements, cancellation/publication/apology, compliance orders) and dismissed the Respondents application to vary costs orders because those orders were perfected or reserved and the Respondents grounds did not fall within the narrow permissible categories to revisit sealed order…
17 Jan 2020
There had been a significant change of circumstances since the consent order of 27 October 2016. The court accepted the Father's evidence of reduced and uncertain income and rejected the Mother's unsubstantiated allegations of concealed income. Balancing need and ability, the court varied the consent order to reduce child maintenance to HKD10,000 per child per month (total HKD20,000) and maintained the Mother's maintenance at HKD5,000 per month, backdating the variation to February 2019; arrears were recalculated accordingly and enforcement/repayment directions were given.
1 Aug 2019
On the facts the child's habitual residence remained Hong Kong because the removal to Canada was surreptitious and there was insufficient integration into Canada; the Mother failed to show Canada was clearly more appropriate under the forum non conveniens test; the stay was dismissed and, applying the welfare principle and In re J guidance, the Court ordered CJH's forthwith return to Hong Kong subject to interim practical arrangements and financial undertakings because return was in the child's best interests and Hong Kong remained her home country.
22 Nov 2018
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success or any other reason favouring an appeal; the alleged constitutional and procedural complaints were unsubstantiated or irrelevant to the custody determination; social welfare reports were properly considered; no stay was warranted; and no costs order should be made given respondent filed no answering materials.
20 Nov 2018
The court found the respondent was duly served with the varied MPS order endorsed with penal notice, intentionally and voluntarily failed to comply with the order (knowledge and non-accidental omission), had the ability to pay (save for the rent he paid directly to the landlord), and had not purged the contempt before the hearing; accordingly the respondent was found in civil contempt and committal to prison was appropriate subject to mitigation being heard.