Arthur Crosby v. Hazel Bronwen Crosby
|
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG DIVORCE JURISDICTION ACTION NO. 288 OF 1971 ----------------- BETWEEN
----------------- Coram : Briggs J. in Court ------------------------ J U D G M E N T ------------------------ 1. This is a petition for divorce on the grounds of adultery brought by the Husband. It is undefended. The parties are domiciled in England but the Petitioner claims to have “a substantial connexion with Hong Kong”. 2. Section 3 of the Matrimonial Causes Ordinance states that the Court shall have jurisdiction in proceedings for divorce in three instances. First, the court has jurisdiction where both parties are domiciled in Hong Kong. The second instance only applies in the case of proceedings brought by a wife who is resident in Hong Kong and is irrelevant for the purposes of these proceedings. The third instance is contained in paragraph (c) of section 3 of the Ordinance and confers jurisdiction on the Court where “either of the parties to the marriage had a substantial connexion with Hong Kong at the date of the petition.” 3. This paragraph was inserted in the Ordinance by the Marriage Reform Ordinance, 1970. It might have been better if the draftsmen at that time had deleted the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of the section; namely have deleted the provisions concerning domicile and residence leaving only the new paragraph (c). For as it stands it couldbe argued that as the questions of domicile and residence are specifically dealt with in the first two paragraphs a “substantial connexion” must mean something other than residence or domicile. 4. However I do not accept that to be the position. And such a proposition was not argued before me in this case. I think that residence is merely one factor to be taken into consideration when assessing the substantiality of the connexion with Hong Kong. 5. The Petitioner is an officer in the Royal Hong Kong Police Force. He now holds the rank of a sub-divisional Inspector. He first came to Hong Kong in 1952 and has been resident here ever since. He is now 42 years old and by the regulations of the Force he has another thirteen years to serve. He has no intention of retiring until the completion of his service at the present time. 6. The parties married in Hong Kong in 1957 and their four children were all born in Hong Kong. 7. The position is therefore that the Petitioner has made the Royal Hong Kong Police Force his career and he has served some twenty years of that career in Hong Kong. And he is still serving. It would be difficult to find a case with a more substantial connexion with Hong Kong. Indeed I would be prepared to hold that any person who holds a similar position in the service of the Hong Kong Government can be said to have a substantial connexion with Hong Kong, other things being equal. 8. There was abundant evidence of the adultery of the Respondent. The Petitioner certainly comes within the ambit of paragraph 3(c) of the Ordinance. 9. I exercise the discretion of the Court in favour of the Petitioner and grant him a decree nisi on the grounds of the adultery of the Respondent. The divorce may be made absolute forthwith. The children of the family are to be in the custody of the Petitioner with their care and control to the Respondent. I am satisfied with the arrangements made for the upbringing and education of the children of the family.
|