4 Jun 2024
The mother's leave to appeal was dismissed for unexplained delay and procedural non‑compliance; alternatively, on the merits the grounds lacked a reasonable prospect of success because the Cost Ruling was supported by findings of the mother's unacceptable litigation conduct and the supervised access costs were reasonably incurred, and therefore leave was not granted.
28 Sept 2023
The judge found the respondent had not shown a reasonable prospect of success: the child's welfare was at material risk, social welfare reports and urgent psychological assessment could not proceed while the respondent obstructed cooperation, the respondent repeatedly ignored court directions and made unsubstantiated allegations that hindered professional assessment; accordingly the interim transfer of care to the petitioner was necessary and leave to appeal was refused.
30 Jun 2023
Applying the apparent bias test the judge examined each ground (D1–D7) and found the impugned orders and directions were lawful case management decisions based on material evidence (expert reports, social welfare memo, Official Solicitor concerns) rather than indications of bias; vacating the trial and interim orders were justified to protect the children and manage court resources; the recusal summons therefore failed and costs were awarded to the Petitioner.
30 Mar 2022
The mother’s evidence was accepted as truthful, the father repeatedly contacted and approached the mother with threats and coercive demands, and there was minimal prospect of cooperative decision‑making between the parties; accordingly sole custody and sole care and control were necessary for the children’s best interests, limited supervised in‑person access at a specialist co‑parenting centre plus regular facilitated video contact were ordered, the non‑molestation order was continued and an authorization of arrest attached and extended for six months to protect the mother and children.
17 Sept 2021
Leave to appeal refused because the Husband failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or any other reason in the interests of justice; the application to adduce fresh evidence failed the Ladd v Marshall test (evidence obtainable with reasonable diligence prior to trial; would not have materially affected the relocation outcome; and credibility concerns), and the grounds largely re‑argued matters of supervised access or raised matters not pursued at trial; no stay granted.
5 Jul 2021
On balance and guided by social welfare reports and the children’s expressed relationships with both parents, make an aspirational order for joint custody but give care and control to the mother due to the father's drug history, prior assaultive incidents and unreliable behaviour; grant structured remote access and limited supervised physical holiday access subject to strict testing and supervisory conditions, with liberty to vary to sole custody on relapse or non-compliance.
24 May 2021
Applying the paramount welfare principle and balancing Payne-style factors as an aide-memoire, the Court found the mother's relocation genuine and realistic, that relocation would best serve the children's stability and welfare, and that joint custody with the mother having care and control and supervised paternal access (until further order) best protects the children; accordingly permanent removal to the UK was permitted with specified access arrangements and directions.
8 Jan 2021
Court granted the Mother's application for leave to file and serve a further expert psychological report and ordered that supervised access continue until further order; the Court held that uplift of supervised access is not automatic upon an expert's recommendation but is subject to Court approval, that experts cannot usurp the Court's functions, and that leave to adduce further expert evidence is justified on the facts and procedural principles balancing justice and case management.
13 Apr 2018
Starting from the parties' shared premise that each should bear 50% of the child's expenses, the court calculated the child's immediate reasonable needs against the mother's demonstrable income and the father's precarious finances. The court adjusted the father's notional housing cost and excluded discretionary items, concluded the mother could afford a substantial contribution, and fixed interim maintenance at HK$8,000 per month from 1 May 2018 for three months. The court refused to backdate the order due to potential intolerable burden on the mother. Pending receipt of testing/reporting and…
18 Aug 2017
Applying the Payne discipline and weighing the paramount welfare of C, the court found the mother's application genuine and realistic, accepted Social Welfare and clinical psychologist assessments that relocation with safeguards would better C's overall welfare, and concluded that relocation to Cyprus at end of August 2017 was in C's best interests. Supervised access must continue for two years (review when C is 14) conducted by a professional nanny agency in Hong Kong or Cyprus unless parties agree a suitable third party. Steps to obtain a mirror order in Cyprus should be taken with costs sp…