Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Substantial connection

  • 22 Sept 2025

    PFX v. XKJ

    Citation
    [2025] HKFC 154
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP188/2024

    Having applied the established test for 'substantial connection' (physical presence as foundational, with holistic assessment of social and economic ties) and having considered the Part IIA leave application afresh (applying the Potanina approach), the court found neither party had a substantial connection with Hong Kong on either material date and the applicant failed to show a substantial ground for financial relief under Part IIA; accordingly the ex parte Part IIA leave was set aside, the originating summons dismissed for want of jurisdiction and the injunction and disclosure order dischar…

  • 28 Nov 2024

    FWM v. NXC

    Citation
    [2024] HKFC 214
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC10248/2023

    Leave to appeal refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate an arguable case with reasonable prospects of success on the issues of jurisdiction, substantial connection and forum non conveniens; the judge’s factual findings were reasonable and there was no other interest of justice to justify the appeal.

  • 30 Apr 2024

    CW v. CC

    Citation
    [2024] HKFC 92
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC11025/2022

    After holistic evaluation of pleaded factors and evidence as at the date of petition the court found none of the nine grounds (whether individually or cumulatively) established a substantial connection to Hong Kong for either party under s.3(c); accordingly the court lacked jurisdiction and the petition is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

  • 29 Jan 2024

    YB v. LX

    Citation
    [2024] HKFC 16
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC596/2022

    Leave to amend the petition was granted despite lateness because the evidence necessary to consider all three jurisdictional limbs was already before the court and prejudice to the respondent could be remedied by directions and costs. On the merits, the amended petition was dismissed for want of jurisdiction: neither party was domiciled in Hong Kong as at the date of the petition, neither party was habitually resident in Hong Kong throughout the three years immediately preceding the petition, and neither party had a substantial connection with Hong Kong given their continuous residence, emplo…

  • 9 Feb 2023

    朱 v. 劉

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 32
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC8529/2021

    Leave to appeal was refused because the Wife failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or any other reason in the interests of justice: the grounds amounted to re‑litigation of fact‑sensitive findings already addressed in the Decision, were inadequately particularised, the Judge properly considered the husband's disclosure and the PRC ruling, and primary findings and credibility determinations were not shown to be plainly wrong.

  • 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 Nov 2022

    朱 v. 劉

    Citation
    [2022] HKFC 223
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC8529/2021

    On the balance of probabilities the Respondent was domiciled in Canada as at the date of the petition and the Petitioner failed to prove that either party had a sufficient substantial connection with Hong Kong under s.3(c) MCO; accordingly the Hong Kong courts lacked jurisdiction and the petition is dismissed. Alternatively, even if jurisdiction existed, the Luohu Court in the PRC is the more appropriate forum for the disputes; the PRC ruling filed post‑hearing was admitted but did not alter the conclusion. The MPS summons is therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Costs ordered to foll…

  • 8 Apr 2022

    JQ v. CLH

    Citation
    [2022] HKCA 489
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV350/2021

    On the facts the husband retained a substantial connection with Hong Kong by reason of sustained economic and social presence (executive roles, Hong Kong sourced income, business and financing ties, and regular business visits); the Judge did not err in law or fact in concluding s 3(c) jurisdiction was satisfied and the appeal is dismissed.

  • 1 Sept 2021

    PH v. DL

    Citation
    [2021] HKFC 166
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC14153/2019

    On the balance of probabilities the Wife failed to prove that the Husband had a substantial connection with Hong Kong at the date of petition: his visits were transitory and limited, his business operations and personal connections were predominantly in PRC, Singapore and the US, and the mere fact of holding a controlling share in a Hong Kong listed company and deriving dividends therefrom did not establish a substantial connection sufficient to confer jurisdiction under s.3(c) Cap.179; accordingly the Hong Kong court lacked jurisdiction and the petition was dismissed.

  • 9 Jul 2021

    JQ v. CLH

    Citation
    [2021] HKFC 133
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC7498/2018

    Leave to appeal was granted because the judge found the husband demonstrated a reasonable prospect of success on marginal facts and novel questions about whether economic or remote control can constitute a substantial connection warrant appellate consideration; accordingly a stay pending appeal was appropriate.