Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Divorce jurisdiction

  • 12 Mar 2019

    Z, SN also known as K, SN v. K, VSF

    Citation
    [2019] HKFC 68
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC9107/2018

    The husband was not domiciled in Hong Kong because his domicile changed to Shanghai in 2001 and his subsequent presence in Hong Kong was temporary and lacked the requisite intention to make Hong Kong his permanent home; further, the factors relied on by the wife (HKID, bank/insurance/investment accounts, family in HK, intermittent stays, registration of marriage) do not, individually or cumulatively, establish a substantial connection with Hong Kong at the date of petition. Therefore Hong Kong courts lack jurisdiction and the wife's petition must be dismissed in accordance with the respondent…

  • 13 Jul 2017

    DA v. SY

    Citation
    DA v. SY
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC14138/2014

    On the evidence (birth certificate, respondent's travel records, assets, memberships and pattern of presence), the respondent had maintained a family relationship in Hong Kong and spent regular, non-transitory periods there such that he had a substantial connection with Hong Kong at the date of petition under s3(c); respondent had taken procedural steps (unqualified Request for Particulars and other steps) amounting to submission to the jurisdiction, so forum challenge was abandoned; the petition was not plainly frivolous or an abuse and should not be struck out; leave to re-amend the petitio…

  • 11 Oct 2016

    CHT v. FD

    Citation
    CHT v. FD
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC10167/2015

    The petitioner failed to prove a substantial connection with Hong Kong at the date of the petition because the evidence was limited and uncorroborated (no travel records, no evidence of ongoing residence or work ties), his decisive resignation and continuous residence and employment in Mainland China for 12 years outweighed the asserted Hong Kong links, and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction under s.3(c) Cap.179 and refused leave to amend; the petition was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

  • 11 Aug 2014

    ZC v. CN

    Citation
    ZC v. CN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV255/2013

    The Court of Appeal held that neither party had a substantial connection with Hong Kong because the parties' matrimonial life was conducted in the Mainland (Shenzhen), the parties' frequent same‑day returns and short stays evidenced residence by passage rather than substantial connection, and ownership of property and bank accounts in Hong Kong did not suffice to establish jurisdiction; accordingly the appellant's appeal was allowed and the wife's petition dismissed.

  • 21 Jan 1974

    YAGYA BEDI v. HARI GOBIND BEDI

    Citation
    YAGYA BEDI v. HARI GOBIND BEDI
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC23/1974

    The District Court, sitting in its divorce jurisdiction, had jurisdiction under s.48(1) of the District Court Ordinance to grant the ex parte injunctions affecting the matrimonial home notwithstanding that the annual rental exceeded the usual $5,000 equitable jurisdictional limit because s.48(1) permits relief as fully as the High Court and is not constrained by s.37 or s.52(1) in divorce proceedings (s.52(2)(b) excludes those limitations). Accordingly the ex parte injunctions were properly granted on the usual undertaking for damages until the return date.