Lhb v. Zcz

On 4 September 2026, Master G.T. Lung in the District Court Family Court handed down judgment in _LHB v ZCZ_ [2026] HKFC 190, dismissing the wife's application to stay the Hong Kong divorce proceedings on forum non conveniens grounds. Ms Esther Leung, counsel instructed by Chen & Lee Law Office, acted for the successful petitioner husband. Mr Cyrus Lau, instructed by Tung Ng Tse & Lam, appeared for the wife.

Both parties are originally from mainland China (husband from Shanxi, wife from Chengdu). They settled in Hong Kong, obtained permanent residence, married here in 2021, and had their daughter LYC here in 2024. The husband filed the HK petition in August 2025 on unreasonable behaviour; the wife took the daughter to Chengdu and commenced divorce proceedings in the Shenzhen Longhua Court before applying to stay the HK action. The Shenzhen Court subsequently ruled it had no jurisdiction and dismissed her case, a decision she appealed.

Applying the three-stage _Spiliada_ test (per _SPH v SA_ (2014) 17 HKCFAR 364), the Court refused the stay. It held that:

(1) The wife failed at Stage 1 to displace Hong Kong as the natural or appropriate forum (§§23-27, 54-55). Substantial HK connections included the marriage, the child's birth, both parties' PR status and employment, and over half the disclosed net assets. The wife's move to Chengdu was reactive to the HK petition, not the fulfilment of a settled pre-existing plan.

(2) The daughter's habitual residence is Hong Kong (§§47-50). A short, post-filing removal does not displace the habitual residence of a child whose entire life and social environment had been established here, applying _LCYP v JEK_ [2015] 4 HKLRD 798.

(3) Differences in substantive law (PRC treatment of premarital assets), alleged enforcement risk under the Mainland-HK Arrangement, and divergent procedural discovery powers do not by themselves make another forum more appropriate (§§39-42). Seeking the forum whose law is more favourable is not the correct analysis.

(4) Hong Kong courts can determine third-party beneficial ownership issues within a single set of proceedings, whereas the Shenzhen Court would likely require separate litigation over the PRC properties, dragging the matter out rather than shortening it (§§30-37).

(5) International comity weighed decisively against a stay, since the Shenzhen Court itself had expressly declined jurisdiction; deference to a forum that has repudiated the matter would be contradictory (§54).

The Court granted retrospective leave for the summons, which had been taken one month and three days out of time, but dismissed paragraphs 2 and 3 of the wife's summons, with costs to the husband on summary assessment.

Why it matters

A tactical PRC filing is no real shield once the PRC court itself rules it has no jurisdiction. Practitioners advising cross-border families should treat the child's actual, settled presence in Hong Kong, not a parent's post-petition move, as the primary anchor when planning forum strategy. PRC legal opinions limited to enforcement risk or substantive-law variation will not move a _Spiliada_ analysis.