Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Recognition of foreign divorce

Legal area

Court

15 Nov 2022

M v. G

Citation

[2022] HKFC 242
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMP36/2022

The originating summons for leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to discharge the burden of proving a "substantial connection" between the husband and Hong Kong as required by s29AE(c) MPPO — there was no evidence of the husband's physical presence or Hong Kong residency and the mere shareholding in a Hong Kong company was insufficient to establish a substantial connection; additionally the supporting affidavit failed to meet rule 103A requirements.
4 Apr 2019

CM v. XDY

Citation

[2019] HKFC 90
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMP154/2018

The applicant failed to establish a substantial connection with Hong Kong because both parties were not physically present or resident in Hong Kong at the relevant times, ownership of the Property and other weak ties (bank accounts, historic employment, deregistered company) were insufficient to establish the required substantive connection; accordingly the statutory jurisdiction under s29AE was not made out and leave under s29AC was refused.
22 Jan 2016

TJ v. XGM

Citation

TJ v. XGM
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMP220/2015

Leave granted because applicant satisfied a jurisdictional requirement (habitual residence/substantial connection), provisionally established Hong Kong as an appropriate forum under s29AF(2) given the parties' Hong Kong connections, the presence of substantial assets connected to Hong Kong, absence of financial orders from Taizhou and practical limitations of PRC remedies, and no undue delay — therefore the 'substantial ground' threshold under s29AC was met.
11 Dec 2014

YY v. QY

Citation

YY v. QY
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC5263/2012

The decree nisi was rescinded because it was obtained on materially untrue or incomplete evidence by the petitioner; however the Mainland divorce decree was not recognised because on balance the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to take part in the Mainland proceedings (s61(2)(a)(ii) MCO), so the Hong Kong petition was not a nullity and the respondent's applications to strike out the petition and to vacate the land registration failed. Costs were apportioned given partial success.
5 Oct 2012

LS v. AD

Citation

LS v. AD
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC34/2012

The application for a stay was dismissed because the Husband failed to establish that Beijing was clearly or distinctly the more appropriate forum; Beijing would deprive the Wife of important juridical advantages (notably full Hong Kong discovery) necessary to pursue substantial ancillary relief concerning complex Hong Kong and offshore assets, and Part IIA does not provide an adequate substitute; on balance substantial justice would not be achieved in the Beijing forum.
25 Jun 2012

CMU v. WPM

Citation

CMU v. WPM
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMP59/2012

The court found the applicant failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, a substantial connection with Hong Kong under s29AE(c) at the relevant dates because historical ties (marriage, prior residence, PR status) and frequent visits were insufficient and there were no substantive continuing links such as Hong Kong assets, tax or residence; consequently the court also found, provisionally under s29AF, that Hong Kong was not the appropriate venue given the Macanese connections and location of the assets. Therefore leave under s29AC was refused and the application dismissed.
23 Dec 2009

I. N. v. M. M. N.

Citation

I. N. v. M. M. N.
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC4561/2008

Court found as a matter of fact that despite actual notice the wife was not given a reasonable opportunity to participate in the Indian proceedings due to practical obstacles (short notice, young dependent children, shelter residence, inability to obtain representation) and that recognition would cause serious prejudice and be manifestly contrary to public policy; accordingly the court exercised its residual discretion under s.61(2) MCO to refuse recognition of the Indian decree and dismissed the husband's stay application.
18 Dec 2009

ML v. YJ

Citation

ML v. YJ
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV89/2008

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was granted because the questions whether recognition of a foreign (PRC) divorce deprives Hong Kong courts of jurisdiction to grant ancillary relief and the scope of the discretion to refuse recognition on public policy grounds are questions of great general and public importance fit for determination by the Court of Final Appeal.
20 Mar 2008

ML v. YJ

Citation

ML v. YJ
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMC13/2006

The court dismissed the Husband's application and refused to recognize the PRC (Shenzhen) divorce for the purpose of preventing the Hong Kong court from granting ancillary relief or a decree absolute because the Husband had used the PRC proceedings unconscionably to frustrate the common intention that Hong Kong determine undistributed matrimonial assets; recognition would therefore be manifestly contrary to public policy under s61(2)(b). Custody and child maintenance jurisdiction in Hong Kong remained unaffected.
4 Dec 2007

HRT v. RHT

Citation

HRT v. RHT
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC5488/2006

The 1960 Sindhi Hindu ceremony produced a valid marriage under Indonesian law because Foreign Orientals non-Chinese were governed by customary law in 1960 and no central civil registration was required; the 8 August 1960 marriage certificate is admissible evidence of that customary marriage; the husband failed to produce decisive evidence of invalidity or of a customary dissolution in or about 1980; the parties have been separated for over two years; accordingly a decree nisi of divorce is granted.