Kk, H v. Pk, H

FCMC 8332 / 2017

[2025] HKFC 14

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES

NUMBER 8332 OF 2017

------------------------------------

--------------------------------------

-----------------------

J U D G M E N T

-----------------------

A.  Background

1.On the 13 December 2024 judgment (“the Judgment”) was delivered inter alia giving leave to the Mother to relocate with A to Singapore; certain prior conditions were required in particular for a mirror order (“the Mirror Order”) to be obtained from the appropriate court in Singapore prior to the physical relocation.

B.  The Mother’s position

2.By her summons of the 19^th of December 2024 (“the Summons”) the Mother seeks to be released from paragraphs 6 and 8 of the order of the 13^th of December 2024 which relate to obtaining the Mirror Order in Singapore prior to the relocation.

3.The Summons is supported by her 50^th affirmation which highlights the following matters post Judgment :

i)  On 16 December 2024 by Whatsapp the Mother asked the Father if he would “consent to mirroring the order in Singapore urgently”.

ii)  The Father replied by Whatsapp on the same day as follows:

I am planning to appeal the judgment, therefore I will not agree to a mirror order until my appeal has been exhausted”

iii)  By email dated 17 December 2024 the Mother’s Singaporean lawyer advised the Mother that the estimate timeline will be 4 to 9 months for a “contested Application of Enforcement of Foreign Judgement” and 2 months if such application is uncontested.

4.On the 17December 2024 the Mother wrote to the Court asking to be released from obtaining the Mirror Order prior to relocation.

5.On the 18 December 2024 the Court directed that the Mother take out a Summons.

6.In her 50^th affirmation the Mother has offered the following undertakings :

i)  “to take all reasonable steps to pursue the mirroring process in the appropriate court in Singapore as soon as practicable, including continuing to work closely with Singapore lawyers upon relocation, if necessary.

ii)  “to continue to support the Petitioner’s defined access rights as stipulated in the order of 13 December 2024”

iii)  “to return to Hong Kong with “A” should the Court require our presence”

7.In her oral submission the Mother stated as follows:

i)  She had obtained an extension to A’s Singaporean Visa until 20 January 2025

ii)  CIS had a place for A to start on 20 January 2025

iii)  She has given notice to her Hong Kong landlord to vacate her apartment by 14 January 2025

iv)  She was in discussion with her employer as to a delayed start date in Singapore

C.  The Father’s position

8.Although the Father is now a litigant in person, as he was at the Trial, I note that on 18 December 2024 Messrs Withers filed a Notice to Act which was operative until the Father filed his Notice to Act in Person on 3 January 2025. By way of background Withers previously acted for the Father in May 2021 before the Court of Appeal.

9.Whilst acting for the Father Messrs Withers wrote to the court on 18 December 2024:

“We have been instructed act for the Petitioner Husband in the captioned proceedings. We refer to the Respondent Wife’s letter to this Court of 17 December 2024.

We are currently considering and advising our client on a potential appeal and application for stay of execution against the Judgment of 13 December 2024. Moreover, the relatively “tight” timeline that the Respondent Wife refers to in her said letter were known to this Court when it made its decisions. There is nothing new.

In the premises and without litigating through legal correspondence, we humbly ask the Court to not entertain the Respondent wife’s requests when surely the proper procedure is for her to take out a Summons with a supporting Affidavit and parties are given proper opportunity to be heard.”

10.In his oral submissions the father confirmed he intended to apply for leave to appeal and stay the Judgment and that such applications would be filed within the next two days.

D.  Analysis

11.The purpose of the Mirror Order was to provide a platform for the Singaporean Court in relation to these proceedings and in particular the Father’s access to A in Singapore.

12.In his written submissions the Father stated “The Father reminds the court that it was the Mother’s own suggestion to have a mirror order in Singapore”.

13.I have reflected on the Judgment and in particular paragraph 89:

“The priority is “the bests interests” of A. Where I have concluded that there is to be a relocation I consider the practical focus is ensuring that A’s move from Hong Kong and her integration in Singapore is as smooth as possible and ,in particular ,her assimilation into her new school .

14.Having considered the case as a whole, the application, evidence and submissions I have no reason to doubt the undertakings proffered by the Mother.

15.In the circumstances to avoid further delay to the relocation and taking into account A’s best interests I will vary the order of 13 December 2024 to enable the Mother to relocate with A without obtaining the Mirror order prior to such relocation,

E.  Order

16.Upon the Mother’s undertakings to the court:

i) “to take all reasonable steps to pursue the mirroring process in the appropriate court in Singapore as soon as practicable, including continuing to work closely with Singapore lawyers upon relocation.

ii) “to continue to support the Petitioner’s defined access rights as stipulated in the order of 13 December 2024”

iii) “to return to Hong Kong with “A” should the Court require her to do so”

17.The order of the 13 December shall be varied to remove the Mother’s obligation to obtain the Mirror Order prior to relocating from Hong Kong to Singapore.

18.The Mother be given leave to serve this order on the Immigration Department of the HKSAR.

F.  Costs

19.There shall be no order as to costs, such nisi order shall become absolute 14 days from the date of this judgment.

The Petitioner (Father) and Respondent (Mother) both appeared in person