Read the full judgment text of CACV 10/2017 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 1 December 2017 before Hon Yuen, Kwan and Poon JJA.
Divorce – Jurisdiction – Substantial connection – Matrimonial Causes Ordinance – Appeal – Findings of fact – Intention to reside – High Court Action – Whether the Judge erred in law by requiring an intention to reside in Hong Kong to establish a substantial connection under section 3(c) of the MCO – No; intention is a relevant factor but not a requirement – Whether the Judge erred by placing excessive weight on the past pattern of life of the parties rather than focusing solely on the position at the date of the petition – No; holistic approach allows considering pre-petition factors – Whether the Judge erred in his assessment of evidence regarding the Husband's employment, assets, and visits to Hong Kong – No; findings were not plainly wrong – Appeal dismissed – Wife to pay Husband's costs of the appeal on a nisi basis, with a certificate for two counsel.
Legal issues: Whether intention to reside is required for substantial connection · Whether past pattern of life can be considered · Whether Judge erred in assessment of evidence
Outcome: Appeal dismissed.
Cited by 43 cases · Cites 5 cases