10 Jan 2022
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance and there was no basis to grant leave under the "otherwise" limb of s22(1)(b) Cap 484.
7 Jan 2021
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground of appeal or any specific error in the judgments below and did not raise any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484.
22 Feb 2016
The petition demonstrated a sufficient connection with Hong Kong and established insolvency warranting the court's exercise of its discretionary winding‑up jurisdiction; historical occurrences capable of constituting a substantial connection are sufficient provided there is a sufficient connection at the time of hearing.
25 Jun 1999
The Court of Appeal found the question to be one of great general and public importance under section 22(b) and therefore granted leave to submit the question to the Court of Final Appeal; it was unnecessary to decide any further issues.
23 Oct 1998
The court found the child was not habitually resident in Luxembourg immediately before the alleged mid‑July retention because the mother had effectively settled the child first in the United States (recognised by Luxembourg interim orders) and then Hong Kong; therefore mandatory return under the Hague Convention failed and, exercising its discretion in the child’s best interests, the court declined to order return, retained wardship and directed custody proceedings in Hong Kong.