The High Court ordered a mother to pay HK$660,000 in legal costs to the father after she unilaterally retained their daughter in Crimea following a 2018 vacation, refusing to return her to Hong Kong for five years.

The court rejected her argument that the father’s conduct justified withholding the child, stressed that child retention is unacceptable in resolving disputes, and deducted the costs from the sale proceeds of her property.

The Court of Appeal discharged an injunction barring the respondent (ex-husband) from leaving Hong Kong, ruling it disproportionately infringed his right to freedom of movement (Article 31, Basic Law), and his common law right to work.

The court criticized the lower court for undervaluing these rights and noted the prolonged enforcement process could hinder his ability to pay the petitioner.

The Court of Appeal revoked a relocation order allowing a mother to move her child to Singapore, citing that prematurity and lack of certainty (exacerbated by COVID-19 travel restrictions), deviation from expert advice (a child psychologist’s recommendations were overlooked), and unsecured plans regarding finances, housing, and the mother’s relationship in Singapore.

The court emphasized the trial judge’s failure to comprehensively assess the child’s welfare but left room for the mother to reapply with a more viable proposal.

The District Court ordered the petitioner (husband) to pay the respondent (wife) HK$17,500/month in interim maintenance during divorce proceedings, despite both parties facing financial difficulties due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The wife, a flight attendant, had reduced income, while the husband claimed insufficient rental income from his properties. 

The court rejected his plea of financial inability, ruling his rental earnings could cover reasonable expenses. 

The award addressed the wife’s monthly shortfall.

In a landmark decision for Hong Kong’s LGBTQ+ community, the High Court granted joint custody, care, and control to a same-sex co-parent (the respondent) in a divorce case.

The applicant (the biological mother) sought the order to ensure the respondent’s continued parental rights post-separation. 

The court recognized the respondent as a “natural” parent based on her psychological and social role in the children’s lives. Emphasizing the children’s best interests, the court noted their close bond with both mothers and the potential harm of distinguishing between their parental roles.

This ruling demonstrates the judiciary’s willingness to use existing laws to advance equality, even absent specific legislation for same-sex parental rights.

In a divorce case, the Hong Kong Family Court ordered two young children (aged 7 and 3) to permanently relocate to Singapore with their father and rejected the mother's application to relocate them to Dongguan, China.The Court considered the father's financially sustainable relocation plan, the children's Singapore citizenship, and the father's willingness to involve the mother in the children's lives.The Court found the mother's plan financially uncertain, noted her lack of effort to correct the children's misunderstanding of their father, and took into account her limited time due to work commitments.Although the daughter expressed a desire to live with her mother, the Court gave limited weight to this request due to her age and misunderstanding of the situation.