…
Stevenson, Wong & Co. have recently acted for the father in an application for the return of child made under the Child Abduction and Custody Ordinance (Cap. 512, Laws of Hong Kong) and the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 (“the Hague Convention”). This case concerns an unusual issue regarding state and consular immunity.
The Court of First Instance handed down the judgment on 15 December 2025 and ordered the immediate return of the two children of the family to their habitual residence in the Czech Republic. (See Secretary for Justice v SK & Another [2025] HKCFI 6345)
Case Background
The parties have two children born in 2012 and 2016 respectively. Following divorce proceedings in the United States, a U.S. court made a decision in 2022, granting joint legal custody of the children to the parties and primary physical custody of the children to the mother. The mother was also allowed to relocate with the children to the Czech Republic in June 2022. The U.S. decision in 2022 was subsequently recognised by the Czech Republic Court in 2024.
In 2025, the Mother was employed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic (“the Ministry”) and was posted to Hong Kong. She relocated the children to Hong Kong without the Father’s consent. The Father then obtained an order from the U.S. Court granting him temporary legal and physical custody of the children and directing that the children shall attend the school in Czech Republic as last enrolled.
Through the Central Authority for the Czech Republic and the Central Authority for Hong Kong, the father requested the immediate return of the children to the Czech Republic.
The Mother’s Defence
The mother opposed the application on the following grounds:
- State immunity & consular immunity: The mother claimed that, as a consular officer, she was entitled to state immunity and consular immunity by virtue of Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963 and the Consular Relations Ordinance (Cap.557, Laws of Hong Kong), such that the Hong Kong Court has no jurisdiction over her.
- No wrongful removal: The mother further claimed that pursuant to the U.S. decision in 2022, she had sole decision-making authority regarding the children including their relocation and schooling.
- Grave risk of Children’s return: The return of the Children to Czech Republic would expose the Children to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place them in an intolerable situation
Court’s Findings
The Court rejected the mother’s grounds of opposition:-
- State and Consular Immunity: The Court held that arranging the relocation of children is a private domestic matter. It is neither an act performed in the exercise of “consular functions” nor an act of a “sovereign or governmental nature”, but merely the mother’s own choice. Consequently, diplomatic status cannot be invoked to shield a party from Hague Convention obligations. The Court also noted that the Czech Consulate-General had communicated to the Secretary for Justice that it expected the Mother to participate in the proceedings, further undermining the claim of immunity.
- Whether the removal was wrong: While the U.S. decision in 2022 granted the mother certain decision-making powers regarding the children’s education, such authority did not extend to relocating the children to another country for schooling. The parties were granted joint legal custody of the children, the unilateral removal of the children to Hong Kong is therefore wrongful.
- Whether there was a grave risk: The Court held that there was no basis to allege that the children would be exposed to physical or psychological harm or abuse under Article 13 of the Hague Convention.
The Court therefore ordered that the children be returned to the Czech Republic. Due to the mother’s unilateral decision to bring the children to Hong Kong and her unreasonable conduct in the proceedings, she was ordered to pay for the children’s return air tickets and the father’s legal costs.
This decision provides important clarification on the limits of state and consular immunity, particularly in the context of family and child-related disputes. it also underscores the Hong Kong courts’ rigorous enforcement of international treaty obligations when navigating child abduction matters.
The father was represented by Stevenson Wong & Co, with the matter handled by Partner Calvin Lo. For further inquiries regarding this case or our services, please contact our Partner and Head of SW Private Client, Wendy Lam or Calvin Lo.