CCMJ v. SSM FORMERLY KNOWN AS SKL

HCMP 1269/2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 1269 OF 2017

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM FCMP NO. 67 OF 2010)

________________________

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR DECISION

________________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Reasons for Decision of the Court) :

1.1   The parties, who are not married, are the parents of their child now aged 9. The respondent mother (‘Mother’) has the custody of the child. By a judgment dated 30 September 2016, Deputy District Judge Own (as he then was) ordered, amongst other things, that :

‘ (f) Unless the Applicant [Father] proceeds to apply for determination of general access arrangement under paragraph 167 (b) of the Judgment dated 5 October 2012 within 21 days from the date of this Decision, the Applicant do have reasonable access of the child;’

1.2   The Father did not apply for a determination of the general access arrangement and had instead applied for leave to appeal against the judgment.  The Judge refused leave.  The Father renewed the application before us.  We granted leave as it is reasonably arguable that the ‘reasonable access’ order will not work in this case where the issue of access has been heavily contested by the parties since the proceedings over the child first began in 2010. 

1.3   After the Father lodged his leave application, there was problem concerning access beginning in January 2017.  B Chu J, on 19 May 2017 (in HCMP 929/2017), on the Father’s application, ordered the child to be made a ward of the Court and had further on 12 October 2017 granted the Father parental ‘rights and authority’ as if the child is legitimate pursuant to section 3(1)(d) of the Guardianship of Minors Ordinance (Cap. 13).

1.4   In view of the fact that B Chu J had on 19 May 2017 ordered the Father to have interim access of the child (pursuant to a previous order dated 31 March 2016) every Saturday from 10 am to 9 pm, it is not necessary for us to make any further order on access.  The parties had further agreed on the access arrangement for the Saturday 14 October 2017.

Costs

2.  We had ordered that the costs of the application be in the cause of the appeal.  Mr Coleman SC had not asked for certificate for two counsel.  In any event we would not have granted such a certificate.  The Mother’s own costs were ordered to be taxed according to the Legal Aid Regulations.