7 Sept 2023
Equal shared interim care on a 2-2-5-5 basis was refused because the short-term status quo favoured the mother as main carer and it would not be in the children's best interests to upset that arrangement; however, the father was granted reasonable interim access pending the Social Investigation Report with a specified access timetable starting 11 September 2023 and supervision was not ordered.
31 May 2023
Applying the welfare checklist and giving decisive weight to AB's educational needs, the demonstrated positive effect of increased time with the Father (Easter/Interim Order experience), the supportive findings in the Social Investigation Report and the need for immediate stability, the Court ordered the Father's proposed 2‑2‑5‑5 term‑time timetable to take effect immediately. The timetable and accessory orders best promote AB's welfare by increasing consistent parental support for schooling, reducing handovers and parental conflict, and preserving ties with the paternal family and French lan…
28 Apr 2023
The court refused to award costs to either party. On the facts the mother was less than forthcoming about the timing and bringing forward of the school start date and failed to disclose material facts; the father’s abrupt refusal to return the children was understandable though imperfect. Fairness dictated no order as to costs; a costs order nisi was made to become absolute in 14 days.
6 May 2022
The Mother failed to show a reasonable prospect of success under s63A because her grounds were essentially re‑runs of trial complaints about evaluation of evidence and discretionary decisions without identifying palpable errors or misapplication of principle; the Judge's findings were supported by SWO and CP reports and observed parental cooperation and adjustment of the children; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and the Costs Order upheld.
6 May 2022
The mother failed to show a reasonable prospect of success under s63A because the trial judge's factual findings and discretionary conclusions—supported by social welfare and psychological reports, evidence of effective parallel parenting and smooth handovers, and findings as to the children's adjustment—were not shown to be plainly wrong or based on error of principle; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and the judge's costs order was left undisturbed as a proper exercise of discretion given the wholly unmeritorious applications.
12 Mar 2021
Leave to appeal dismissed because the seven grounds merely replicated trial arguments and did not demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or any other interest of justice warranting appellate intervention; the judge’s findings on shared care, credibility and weight of expert/SWO reports were within the proper exercise of discretion and not vitiated by error of law.
3 Apr 2017
Leave to appeal was refused because the Judge permissibly exercised her discretion in the children's best interests, reasonably rejected the experts' week‑on/week‑off recommendation as too disruptive for the youngest child and gave adequate reasons; therefore the decision was not plainly wrong and did not justify appellate interference.
13 Oct 2016
Because the mother will be the primary carer (children to reside with her five nights a week) her choice of Shatin accommodation was given decisive weight; the court accepted market evidence supporting a reasonable maximum rent of HK$50,000 per month for a suitably sized flat in Dragons Range and imposed interim maintenance of HK$65,000 per month (HK$32,500 each) from 1 December 2016, together with specific parental undertakings to meet helper costs, school and related expenses, phone contracts, chauffeur service and tenancy deposit; backdating and final apportionment reserved to final hearin…