Read the full judgment text of FCMC 596/2022 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment was delivered on 29 January 2024 before Deputy District Judge W.Y. Ho.
Matrimonial Causes Ordinance (Cap 179) – Jurisdiction – Domicile – Habitual Residence – Substantial Connection – Amendment Summons – Dismissal – Costs – The District Court considered an application to amend a divorce petition and a challenge to jurisdiction. The Petitioner sought to add habitual residence and substantial connection grounds to the petition after the Respondent challenged jurisdiction. The Court allowed the late amendment to ensure a comprehensive decision on jurisdiction, subject to costs. The Court examined whether jurisdiction existed under section 3 of the Matrimonial Causes Ordinance based on domicile, habitual residence, or substantial connection. Regarding domicile, the Court found neither party was domiciled in Hong Kong; the Respondent lost permanent resident status in 2013 and never intended to reside permanently, while the Petitioner had resided in Mainland China since 2019 without returning after border reopening. Regarding habitual residence, the Court found neither party resided in Hong Kong throughout the three years immediately preceding the petition; the Petitioner's evidence was inconsistent and unsupported, and the Respondent had lived in Mainland China since 2019. Regarding substantial connection, the Court found the parties had a substantial connection to Mainland China as their daily lives, employment, and children's education were there, and property ownership alone was insufficient. The Petitioner's Amended Petition was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Costs were awarded to the Respondent.
Legal issues: Amendment Summons · Domicile · Habitual Residence · Substantial Connection
Outcome: Petitioner's Amended Petition dismissed for want of jurisdiction
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 1 case