Read the full judgment text of FCMC 9144/2015 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment before Deputy District Judge D. David Cheung.
Family law – Prohibition Order – Jurisdiction – Domicile – Matrimonial Causes Ordinance – Domicile Ordinance – District Court – Petitioner C applied for Prohibition Order to prevent Respondent T from removing assets from Hong Kong jurisdiction pursuant to Order 44A Rule 2 of the Rules of the High Court Cap.4A – Husband born in PRC in 1962, acquired Hong Kong permanent resident status in 1996 after living in Hong Kong for 7 years but resided in Guangzhou since 1996 running a record company – Husband visited Hong Kong every three months for medical treatment only, staying for a few hours – Wife alleged husband domiciled in Hong Kong at date of Petition 17th July 2015 – Court held husband domiciled in PRC due to long residence, business, family ties and assets in PRC – Visits to Hong Kong for medical treatment did not constitute intention to reside permanently – Court not satisfied there was probable cause for good cause of action as jurisdiction based on domicile not established under Section 3 Matrimonial Causes Ordinance, Cap 179 – Court also not satisfied husband incurred liability while present in Hong Kong under s 21B of High Court Ordinance – Court considered factors including length of residence, condition of residence, marriage with local partner, whereabouts of family, business interest, whereabouts of personal belongings, whereabouts of property and investments, fact of naturalisation, decision made as to nationality of children, education of children, memberships of clubs or religious associations, place of work, relation between a man and his family – Court relied on principles in Re Ip Pui Man Nina [2011] 3 HKLRD 299 regarding domicile distinct from permanent home – Husband had 20 landed properties in PRC worth HK$56 million and only assets worth few million in Hong Kong – Wife had previously obtained injunction order against husband disposing of assets up to HK$31,454,611.71 – Decision handed down on 22nd September 2017 by Deputy District Judge D. David Cheung – Ex parte application dismissed – No order as to costs
Legal issues: Domicile and Jurisdiction · Liability incurred in Hong Kong
Outcome: Ex parte application dismissed
Cites 2 cases