• Top Talent Pass Scheme;
• General Employment Policy;
• Admission Scheme for Mainland Talents and Professionals;
• Quality Migrant Admission Scheme;
• Immigration Arrangements for Non-local Graduates;
• Admission Scheme for the Second Generation of Chinese Hong Kong Permanent Residents;
• New Capital Investment Entrant Scheme;
• Capital Investment Entrant Scheme;
• Technology Talent Admission Scheme; and
• Vocational Professionals Admission Scheme.

Principal applicants and/or their dependants under the specified schemes are required to pay a non-refundable application fee of HKD600 for each application of entry, change of conditions of stay or extension of stay. In addition, the visa and entry permit issuance fees for approved applications are increased from the original flat rate of HKD230 to HKD600 for visas with a validity period of 180 days or less, and to HKD1,300 for visas with a validity period of 181 days or more. The changes reflect the “user pays” principle adopted by the Government.

The Hong Kong Immigration Department has accordingly implemented the new fees structure on 26 February 2025. Our Immigration Practice Team helps applicants pursue their applications in the respective schemes.

Please contact our Partner Willy Cheng for any enquiries or further information.

This news update is for information purposes only. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be treated as such. Stevenson, Wong & Co. will not be liable to you in respect of any special, indirect or consequential loss or damage arising from or in connection with any decision made, action or inaction taken in reliance on the information set out herein.

The A-List highlights the most highly recommended private practice lawyers across various fields within China’s legal market. Following months of rigorous market research, CBLJ has identified future leaders who are redefining excellence through innovation, reshaping value standards, and bringing new momentum to the legal industry.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank CBLJ for the recognition and express our gratitude to our clients for their continued trust and support.

For more information, please contact our Partner Gordon Tsang, or click here to see the rankings on the CBLJ.

The Court of First Instance of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region recently delivered a judgment in TE v LSY [2024] HKCFI 3652 that sheds light on the complexities surrounding child abduction and custody under the Child Abduction and Custody Ordinance (Cap. 512) (“CACO”) and the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, 1980 (“the Convention”). Delivered on 23 December 2024, this ruling examines the issue of consent as a ground of objection to the return of the child following the child’s abduction and/or retention.

Mr. Calvin Lo, our partner at Stevenson, Wong & Co, represented the Plaintiff father (“the Father”) in these proceedings.

Case Summary

The proceedings involved a child, GT (“the Child”), who was born in wedlock.  The Defendant mother (“the Mother”) took the Child from Italy to Hong Kong in the summer of 2024.  It was undisputed that Italy was the habitual residence of the Child and that both parties had custody of the Child in Italy.  The only issue was whether there was consent and/or acquiescence.

The Mother contended that the parties reached an agreement during a conversation in June 2024, that she would permanently relocate with the Child to Hong Kong. The Father argued that he only consented to the Mother taking the Child on a summer trip, thus the Mother was wrongfully retaining the Child in Hong Kong when she refused to bring the Child back to Italy.

Legal Principles

The jurisdiction of the Hong Kong Court in child abduction cases is primarily governed by the CACO and the Convention.  The key issue in this case was whether the Father had consented to the Child’s relocation or had acquiesced to the Mother’s actions following the removal.

Consent to the removal of the child must be established on the balance of probabilities by clear and cogent evidence: EW v LP [2013] HKCFI 1405; HCMP1605/2011 at para 37. The burden of proving consent rests on the person who asserts it. The inquiry is inevitably fact-specific, and the facts and circumstances vary from case to case.  The ultimate question, although influenced by numerous facts, remains straightforward: Had the other parent clearly and unequivocally consented to the removal: Re P-J (Children) [2009] EWCA Civ 588 at para 48.

Key Issues Addressed

1. Consent and Acquiescence: The crux of the case hinged on conflicting accounts of conversations on 2 June 2024.  The Mother alleged the Father had consented to the permanent relocation of the Child; in contrast, the Father contended his agreement was limited to a temporary visit for the summer.  The Court was tasked with evaluating the evidence surrounding this pivotal discussion.
2. Evidence of Conduct: The Mother relied on subsequent conduct of the parties, such as her notes of the parties’ conversation and the purchase of single journey tickets to Hong Kong to prove the Father’s consent.  Communications between the parties, including the tone of the messages and the parties’ emotional reactions, were also scrutinized to determine if consent was given.

Court’s Decision

The Court ultimately ruled in favour of the Father and found that the evidence was insufficient to establish consent, which must be clear and unequivocal.  The judgment detailed the following findings:

• Insufficient Evidence of Consent: The Court determined that the evidence relied on by the Mother was not clear or cogent enough to establish that the Father gave his consent.  Some evidence, such as the purchase of single journey tickets and the Father assisting the Mother in packing away of belongings, could be interpreted to suit the case of either party.   Some evidence, such as the Mother’s own note of the conversation on 2 June 2024 and the affirmations of her friends, was self-serving, which would be unsafe to put much weight on.  The Court therefore found that the Mother could not establish that the Father had given consent, either expressly or by conduct.
• Rejection of Acquiescence Argument: The Mother’s alternative case that the Father had subsequently acquiesced to the relocation also failed based on the same evidence.  The Court highlighted that some messages exchanged between the parties, where they showed that the Father was objecting to the Child staying and studying in Hong Kong.

Given the findings, the Court ordered that the Child be returned to Italy at the earliest opportunity, reinforcing the primary objective of the Convention, which is to secure the prompt return of the children, who had been wrongfully removed, to their place of habitual residence.

Conclusion

This case illustrates how the Convention is applied in the Court in Hong Kong and the importance of clear and unequivocal consent in disputes over child relocation and abduction.  As cross-border and international marriages and family arrangements become more common, the legal community must remain vigilant about the implications of parental consent in child abduction cases.  This judgment also serves as a reminder of the legal principles behind the Convention, and in particular, the need for comprehensive evidence to substantiate claims of consent or acquiescence in abduction cases.

Please contact our Partners Wendy Lam or Calvin Lo for any enquiries or further information.

This news update is for information purposes only. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be treated as such. Stevenson, Wong & Co. will not be liable to you in respect of any special, indirect or consequential loss or damage arising from or in connection with any decision made, action or inaction taken in reliance on the information set out herein.