Read the full judgment text of CACV 98/2015 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 13 August 2015 before Hon Lam VP, Cheung and Kwan JJA.
Divorce Jurisdiction – Domicile – Substantial Connection – Hague Convention – Habitual Residence – Child's Objection Defence – Wife (LCYP) and Husband (JEK) married in New Jersey with children born there. Wife moved to Hong Kong with children in 2013 for temporary period. Husband discovered affair in December 2013. Wife petitioned divorce in Hong Kong. Husband applied to stay divorce and return children under Hague Convention. Family Court ruled against Wife on jurisdiction and against Husband on Hague application. Court of Appeal allowed Wife's appeal on domicile and substantial connection, finding Hong Kong Court has jurisdiction. Court of Appeal dismissed Husband's appeal on Hague Convention, finding children habitually resident in Hong Kong and child's objection defence made out. Wife awarded costs of appeal and half costs below. – Whether Wife acquired domicile of choice in Hong Kong – Yes. – Whether Wife had substantial connection with Hong Kong – Yes. – Whether children habitually resident in Hong Kong – Yes. – Whether child's objection defence established – Yes.
Legal issues: Domicile for divorce jurisdiction · Substantial connection for divorce jurisdiction · Habitual residence under Hague Convention · Child's objection defence under Hague Convention
Outcome: Wife's appeal allowed; Husband's appeal dismissed. Hong Kong Court has jurisdiction over divorce. Children remain in Hong Kong.
Cites 3 cases