GJ v. WYB

FCMC 9219/2025

[2026] HKFC 48

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES NO. 9219 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

Jurisdiction Decision

________________________

1.  On 27 February 2026, I had a substantive hearing (the “Hearing”)  for a summons taken out by the Respondent Husband (“H”)  on 28 October 2025 on whether Hong Kong has jurisdiction to entertain a Petition taken out by the Petitioner Wife (“W”)  on 15 September 2025 (the “Petition”). The following chronology is relevant to the Petition and the Hearing.

2.  On 15 September 2025, W took out the Petition based on Mild / Unreasonable Behaviour.  W pleaded W had a substantial connection with Hong Kong at the time of the Petition. 

3.  W pleaded she is a holder of HKID and has been residing in Hong Kong since April 2018.  Since May 2025, she have obtained permanent residency in Hong Kong.  (paragraph 3 of the Petition)

4.  On 8 October 2025, H filed Acknowledgement of Service.  H stated he would dispute the jurisdiction of the Petition and forum in dealing with these proceedings in Question 4 of the Acknowledgement of Service.

5.  On 28 October 2025, H took out a Summons, asking:

(1)  Petition filed on 15 September 2025 be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

(2)  Further and/or alternatively, all proceedings be permanently stayed on the basis of forum non conveniens (“FNC”)  in favour of the Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, the United States of America (the “California Court”).

(3)  Alternatively and without prejudice to paragraph (2)  above, the divorce suit herein and any ancillary relief matters to be bifurcated and dealt with by the California Court under case number XXXXXX.

(4)  There be an interim stay and no further steps be taken in these proceedings pending determination of paragraphs (1), (2)  and/or (3)  above.

(“Jurisdiction, FNC and Bifurcation Summons”)

6.  On 26 November 2025, upon Respondent’s agreeing to deal with Jurisdiction issue first, paragraph 1 of the Jurisdiction, FNC and Bifurcation Summons which is related to Jurisdiction Issue be adjourned to 27 February 2026 for substantive argument and there be an interim stay of these proceedings.  First Appointment Hearing be also adjourned sine die, pending determination of the Jurisdiction Issue.  This is the written decision recording my ex parte tempore decision after the hearing.

JURISDICTION

Background of the Family

7.  It will be useful to set out the background information of the family first as these are pertinent to the issues of the Jurisdiction Summons.

8.  H was born in Wenzhou in 1968 and was 57 years old at the time of substantive hearing. He completed his elementary, secondary and undergraduate education in Mainland China.  After he graduated in Zhejiang University in July 1991 with Bachelor’s Degree in Engineering, he moved to the US to continue his graduate studies in University of Florida in August 1991.  He graduated with a Master of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Florida and accepted a job offer in Silicon Valley at Northern California in 1993.  H obtained permanent residency (Green Card)  in the US in 1997 and obtained US citizenship by naturalization in 2003.  In May 2005, H founded V, Inc., a California corporation.  He is now a CEO of V. 

9.  W was born in Changsha in 1979 and was 46 years old at the time of substantive hearing.  She also completed her elementary, secondary and tertiary education in Mainland China, obtaining a Master’s Degree.  In August 2025, W went to Houston to pursue PHD programme at Texas A&M University but discontinued her PHD studies but instead obtained a Master of Science degree at Texas A&M university due to her marriage with H. 

10.  The couple knew each other in 2007.  W found out she was pregnant with parties’ first child, J in January 2008.  Parties then married in Hawaii in February 2008. J was born in California on 26 September 2008.  J was 17 years old at the time of substantive hearing.  The second child G, was born in California on 3 November 2015.  G was 10 years old at the time of substantive hearing.

11.  H stated W obtained permanent residency (Green Card)  in the US in 2009 and obtained US citizenship by naturalization in California in around 2012 or later.  W acknowledged she obtained a real estate broker licence in 2010 and started her own company SFMC in California in 2013. 

12.  The turning point of the family is around 2017.  V, Inc came to Hong Kong to seek listing on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange in 2017 and was approved by the Hong Kong Stock Exchange for public listing in January 2018.  H stated he travelled extensively for his work, including to Hong Kong once his company decided to seek a public listing in Hong Kong.  After V was successfully listed in the Hong Kong Stock Exchange in January 2018, H stated V offered an apartment in Hong Kong for H to stay, so H did not have to stay in hotels when he traveled to Hong Kong.  It is undisputed that the Parties and their children moved to Hong Kong and lived in a rented apartment in Hong Kong offered by H’s company, the parties had different version on the purpose of the stay.

13.  W stated that due to H’s extensively traveling and due to H’s absence in the family, W proactively proposed to H in 2017 about relocating to Hangzhou, China, to be near the centre of H’s business operations.  H refused the proposal.  H&W also explored Hong Kong but was not welcomed by H.  However, after V successful listing in Hong Kong in early 2018, W stated H invited W to view a rented apartment in Hong Kong and proposed moving the family to Hong Kong.  W said H presented Hong Kong as an ideal compromise which offered excellent international education while being geographically close to headquarter of V and the growing Research and Development team and core market in Mainland China.  W stated she agreed to the suggestion of relocation and the family moved Hong Kong in April 2018.  They lived in a rented apartment at 109 R Road, J and G were enrolled in HA and WM preschool respectively. 

14.  H denied he had proposed to move the family to Hong Kong.  H stated H&W decided to take children to Hong Kong for school on a temporary basis for a couple of years or so in order that they can gain some international experience and learn the Chinese language.  H stressed it was always intended to be temporary, or like an extended “study trip” for the Children when they brought the Children to Hong Kong in around April 2018.  H stressed that they spent zero effort in setting up their residence in Hong Kong as they took the easiest route and decided to live in the apartment provided by H’s company.  They never moved any of the furniture or personal belongings from their home in A, California to Hong Kong, save for minimal clothing and shoes and daily necessities.  H said the family moved into a newly rebuilt house in PA, which the family still occupy as their primary residence. 

15.  In relation to the children, the children returned to California for Summer Holidays in 2019.  Due to social unrest in Hong Kong, the parties decided not to send the Children to Hong Kong for the upcoming school year.  J was enrolled at GJM School, a public school in PA and G was enrolled at the SVIS, a multi-lingual school.  In around December 2019, the parties received an acceptance letter from IS for J.  After some consideration, the parties decided they could send J to Hong Kong.  Due to Covid, J had to take e-classes online from IS and he finally went to Hong Kong in around June 2020 for face-to-face classes.  G also came along and attended preschool in IS.

16.  It is not disputed that J started studying at boarding school in the US since September 2024.  According to Statement as to arrangements for the children for the family, J presently attends Grade 11 at PAS at P.  G is studying Grade 4 of IS.

17.  According to H, in around April 2025, W asked for a divorce and asked H to find a family lawyer so the parties can get a divorce.  H said the parties agreed to get a divorce in California. H filed a divorce in California on 9 July 2025 (“California Proceedings”).  After W was served with divorce papers on 25 July 2025, H said W remained in contact with H’s US lawyers and even asked H’s lawyers to recommend a divorce lawyer to her. 

18.  W then filed the Petition in Hong Kong on 15 September 2025.  W pleaded that both parties now resides in 67 R Road. 

Legal Principles on Substantial Connection

19.  I cannot see any dispute on legal principles of substantial connection by reading parties’ submissions.

20.  The starting point is s.3(c)  of the Matrimonial Causes Ordinance (Cap. 179)  (“MCO”), which provides that: 

“3. Jurisdiction in divorce

The court shall have jurisdiction in proceedings for divorce under this Ordinance if –

(a)  either of the parties to the marriage was domiciled in Hong Kong at the date of the petition or application;

(b)  either of the parties to the marriage was habitually resident in Hong Kong throughout the period of 3 years immediately preceding the date of the petition or application; or

(c)  either of the parties to the marriage had a substantial connection with Hong Kong at the date of the petition or application.” (emphasis added)

21.  In JQ v. CLH [2022] 2 HKLRD 632, para.21, the Court of Appeal described the principles for determination on substantial connection under s.3(c)  MCO as “well-established”.

22.  In ZJW v. SY CACV 10/2017 (1 December 2017), para. 36, the Court of Appeal stated how to determine a “substantial connection” in the context of section 3(c)  of MCO is “a well-trodden area”.

23.  JQ v. CLH is a recent Court of Appeal case on substantial connection which recognized that the leading authority on this topic in Hong Kong is the judgment of the Court of Appeal in ZC v CN (Divorce: jurisdiction) [2014] 3 HKLRD 43 and quoted the relevant principles in paragraph 21 of the judgment. 

“21. The principles for determining whether a person has a “substantial” connection with Hong Kong for the purpose of s 3(c)  of the Ordinance are well established. The leading authority on this topic in Hong Kong is the judgment of the Court of Appeal in ZC v CN (Divorce: jurisdiction)  [2014] 5 HKLRD 43, where Cheung JA (with whom the other two members of the Court of Appeal agreed)  considered in depth the statutory requirement of substantial connection under that section:

“[9.1] In line with the modern approach of statutory interpretation, one should not simply look at the natural and ordinary meaning of the words ‘substantial connection’ but also the context and purpose of this term.

[9.4] Whether a person has a substantial connection with Hong Kong is clearly a question of fact. No definition for this term will be succinct or comprehensive enough. What one may do is to look at the surrounding factors to see whether that person is substantially connected with Hong Kong at the time of the petition. As a starting point, one begins to see if that person has connection here and then decide whether that connection is a substantial one, see S v S [2006] 3 HKLRD 751 paragraph 15. In terms of connection, there must be physical presence in Hong Kong, this must be the ground rock of invoking the divorce jurisdiction. But because of the requirement of ‘substantial’, the presence cannot be of a transitory nature otherwise this will encourage ‘fly in’ and ‘fly out’ divorces, a theme that the Court has consistently emphasised, see, for example, Griggs (nee Sharp)  v Griggs [1971] HKLR 299, Ta Tran Thi Thanh v Ta Van Hung and Another [1981] HKDCLR 37 and more recently S v S, B v A [2008] 1 HKLRD 43.

[9.5] In the majority of cases, where a married couple is in Hong Kong, the Court will have no difficulties in ascertaining whether they have a substantial connection here. Thus in RI v SSH [2010] 4 HKC 588, this Court held that:

‘4. …… Hence in order to see whether the proceeding has a real and substantial connection to Hong Kong one must, first of all, ascertain whether at the time of its commencement the parties have substantially conducted their matrimonial life in Hong Kong. Hong Kong being an international commercial city, the identification of this issue is most acute for expatriate families who live in Hong Kong. The relevant considerations are, for example, whether the parties’ matrimonial home is here, what is their past pattern of life; do they regard Hong Kong as their home for the time being even if their life style may indicate that they may not take root in one place for too long a time. Related to the issue are matters such as the place of work of the spouses: do they choose to work here; even if one of them has to ‘commute’ overseas to work, is Hong Kong still treated as their home base. Likewise for the children of the family: are they studying here or spending their vacations here even if they are studying abroad.’

See also LN v SCCM (CACV 62/2013), Judgment dated 4 June 2013 and DGC v SLC (née C)[2005] 3 HKC 293.

[9.6] While the discussion in RI v SSH was in the context of forum non conveniens, the question of forum is dependent on the place where the parties have the most real and substantial connection with the action. Hence the suggested factors are clearly applicable to the present discussion.

[9.7] Traditionally, the discussion of this topic mainly centred on the foreign expatriate community who are present in Hong Kong because of business commitments or to avail themselves of the opportunities in this international commercial city, see, for example, S v S, B v A, G v G [2005] 1 HKFLR 182 and Z v Z (Substantial Connection and Forum)  [2012] HKFLR 346. Increasingly in recent years this issue is extended to many of the Hong Kong and Mainland China families who have homes or businesses both here and in the Mainland. Examples can be found in this and other cases such as LS v AD (Forum; Discovery in the PRC)  [2012] HKFLR 376 and YS v TTWD (Substantial Connection: Forum)  [2012] HKFLR 129. The focus of discussion in these cases is not about mainlanders who came here on visitors’ two way permit but those who have resident status in Hong Kong. Needless to say, the same approach of looking at the surrounding circumstances in order to ascertain the presence of substantial connection is to apply to these parties as well.

[9.8] The fact that a party has resident status which allows him or her to live here legally is only a factor to be taken into account. He or she may not be living here on a long term basis and only comes here occasionally. No doubt one has to look at other factors such as the party’s past pattern of life, the frequency of his visit to Hong Kong, the length and purpose of the stay, whether the party is engaged in business or work here, whether the rest of the family is here and whether a home has been established here and whether the children are at school here. It is also important to bear in mind that since the legislation only requires the party to establish a substantial connection in Hong Kong, he or she at the same time may have a substantial connection elsewhere, see S v S. In my view, if a party is shown to have substantial connection elsewhere by reason of his home or work, this may be used to contrast with the connecting factors he has in Hong Kong to see whether the Hong Kong connection is a substantial one.

[9.9] It is said in Savournin at page 184 (and also B v A at paragraph 20)  that a meaning must be given to substantial connection wider than domicile or three years’ ordinary residence. But this is not intended to be interpreted so loosely as to encourage residence of passage (Indyka v Indyka [1969] 1 AC 33 at 105)  or divorce of convenience. At the same time it will be unduly restrictive if one confines the connecting factors solely to that of a family context, namely, accommodation in a matrimonial home and presence of spouses and children. While in the majority of cases, family context is the focus of the inquiry and a material factor, there may well be situations where a party is in Hong Kong without the presence of his family, but nonetheless is able to show that he has a substantial connection here. It really depends on the circumstances of the case. Such cases, however, must be regarded as exceptional.” (emphasis added)

24.  Meanwhile, ZJW v. SY laid down a specific approach on how the court makes a determination on substantial connection under s.3(c)  MCO (ZJW v. SY, paras.35-43).

“D2. Specific approach

35. We next turn to the specific approach to be adopted by the Court of Appeal in reviewing findings of fact made in the context of a determination under section 3(c)  of the MCO. That approach is, in our view, to be informed by how the court makes a determination on substantial connection under section 3(c).

D2.1 Determining “substantial connection”

36. How to determine a “substantial connection” in the context of section 3(c)  is a well-trodden area, as the case law demonstrates. The Judge in his judgment at [15] – [26] referred to a line of cases from Jean Michel Savournin v Lau Yat Fung [1971] HKLR 180, S v S [2006] 3 HKLRD 751; B v A [2008] 1 HKLRD 43 and culminating in ZC v CN (Divorce: jurisdiction)  [2014] 5 HKLRD 43. Based on the well-established principles derived from the authorities, the proper approach to determine if a substantial connection is established for the purpose of section 3(c)  on the facts of a particular case may be stated as follows.

37. First, whether a party to a marriage had a substantial connection with Hong Kong at the time of the presentation of the petition is a question of fact. Like any other question of fact, the court must have regard to all the circumstances of the case to determine if that party had the requisite substantial connection.

38. Second, a two-stage process is usually adopted :

(1) If the person concerned has a connection with Hong Kong;

(2) If yes, is the connection a substantial one.

39. For (1), connection must mean physical presence in Hong Kong. For (2), substantiality means that the connection cannot be of a transitory nature. It must be of sufficient significance or worth to justify the courts of Hong Kong assuming jurisdiction in respect of matters going to and consequential upon the dissolution of the parties’ marriage. The court will identify all the factors relevant to substantial connection or the lack of it, evaluate them and give them such weight as is appropriate in the overall circumstances of the case.

40. Third, what are the relevant factors and how much weight is to be given to each of them depend on the actual circumstances of the case. Since it is a fact-sensitive exercise, there can be no comprehensive list exhausting all the relevant factors to be taken into account. Nor can there be any mechanistic formula directing how much weight is to be attached to a particular relevant factor. As Kwan JA recently observed in LCYP v JEK, supra, at [40], citing S v S [2006] 3 HKLRD 751, [18] :

“ …whether a party to a marriage would have a substantial connection with Hong Kong is a question of fact, so the factors to be taken into consideration and the weight to be given to each relevant factor would vary according to the particular circumstance of each case.”

41. Without attempting an exhaustive list, this Court (differently constituted)  held in RI v SSH [2010] 4 HKC 488 at [4] :[1]

“ [4] …Hence in order to see whether the proceeding has a real and substantial connection to Hong Kong, one must, first of all, ascertain whether at the time of its commencement the parties have substantially conducted their matrimonial life in Hong Kong.  Hong Kong being an international commercial city, the identification of this issue is most acute for expatriate families who live in Hong Kong.  The relevant considerations are, for example, whether the parties’ matrimonial home is here, what is their past pattern of life; do they regard Hong Kong as their home for the time being even if their life style may indicate that they may not take root in one place for too long a time.  Related to the issue are matters such as the place of work of the spouses : do they choose to work here; even if one of them has to ‘commute’ overseas to work, is Hong Kong still treated as their home base. Likewise for the children of the family : are they studying here or spending their vacations here even if they are studying abroad.”

42. In cases where a substantial connection is alleged to have been established by the fact that a party has resident status in Hong Kong, or his/her travelling to or stays in Hong Kong, Cheung JA in ZC v CN, supra, at [9.8], observed :

“ The fact that a party has resident status which allows him or her to live here legally is only a factor to be taken into account.  He or she may not be living here on a long term basis and only comes here occasionally.  No doubt one has to look at other factors such as the party’s past pattern of life, the frequency of his visit to Hong Kong, the length and purpose of the stay, whether the party is engaged in business or work here, whether the rest of the family is here and whether a home has been established here and whether the children are at school here.  It is also important to bear in mind that since the legislation only requires the party to establish a substantial connection in Hong Kong, he or she at the same time may have a substantial connection elsewhere, see S v S.  In my view, if a party is shown to have substantial connection elsewhere by reason of his home or work, this may be used to contrast with the connecting factors he has in Hong Kong to see whether the Hong Kong connection is a substantial one.”

43. Fourth, after carefully evaluating and weighing all the relevant factors in the overall circumstances of the case, the court will find as a matter of fact if the party had a substantial connection with Hong Kong at the time of the presentation of the petition under section 3(c).”(emphasis added)

25.  In summary, the guidance from the above Court of Appeal cases are as follows:

(a)  Whether a person has a substantial connection with Hong Kong is clearly a question of fact (ZC v. CN, para.9.4 and ZJW v. SY, para.37).

(b)  Two stage process is adopted:

(i)  If the person concerned has a connection with Hong Kong – connection must mean physical presence in Hong Kong (ZC v. CN para. 9.4 and ZJW v. SY, para.38-39).

(ii)  If yes, is the connection a substantial one – connection cannot be of a transitory nature.  It must be of sufficient significance or worth to justify the courts of Hong Kong assuming jurisdiction in respect of matters going to and consequential upon the dissolution of the parties’ marriage. (ZC v. CN, para. 9.4 and ZJW v. SY, para.38-39.)

(c)  The fact that a party has resident status which allows him or her to live here legally is only a factor to be taken into account (ZC v CN¸para 9.8)

(d)  The party may not be living in Hong Kong on a long-term basis, and only comes here occasionally (ZC v CN, para. 9.8)

(e)  What are the relevant factors and how much weight is to be given to each of them depend on the actual circumstances of the case.  There is no comprehensive list exhausting all the relevant factors to be taken into account.  Nor there be any mechanistic formula directing how much weight is to be attached to a particular relevant factor (ZJW v. SY, para.40). Without attempting an exhaustive list, the Court of Appeal listed some relevant considerations for expatriate families who live in Hong Kong:

(i)  For expatriate families who live in Hong Kong – whether the parties’ matrimonial home is here, what is their past pattern of life; do they regard Hong Kong as their home for the time being even if their life style may indicate that they may not take root in one place for too long a time.  Related to the issue are matters such as the place of work of the spouses: do they choose to work here; even if one of them has to ‘commute’ overseas to work, is Hong Kong still treated as their home base. Likewise for the children of the family: are they studying here or spending their vacations here even if they are studying abroad. (ZC v. CN, para.9.5 and ZJW v. SY, para.41, by quoting RI v. SSH [2010] 4 HKC 488, para.4.)

(f)  The legislation only requires the party to establish a substantial connection in Hong Kong, he or she at the same time may have a substantial connection elsewhere.  If a party is shown to have substantial connection elsewhere by reason of his home or work, this may be used to contrast with the connecting factors he has in Hong Kong to see whether the Hong Kong connection is a substantial one.  (ZC v. CN, para.9.8.)

(g)  Meaning must be given to substantial connection wider than domicile or three years’ ordinary residence.  But this is not intended to be interpreted to loosely as to encourage residence of passage or divorce of convenience.  (ZC v. CN, para.9.9.)

(h)  After carefully evaluating and weighing the relevant factors in the overall circumstances of the case, the Court is required by the statute to determine, as a matter of fact, whether a party had a substantial connection with Hong Kong at the time of the presentation of the petition under s.3(c)  (ZJW v SY, para.43).

26.  In addition to the principles established by the Court of Appeal, I also bear the following legal principles in mind:

(a)  The burden rests on the Petitioner to satisfy the Court that this Court does have jurisdiction under s.3 MCO.  Parties cannot confer jurisdiction on the court if the court does not have one. (W v. C (Domicile and Forum) [2013] HKFLR 213).

(b)  The standard is on balance of probabilities. (JQ v. CLH, para.22, by quoting S v S [2006] 3 HKLRD 751, para. 15).

(c)  It is also trite that whether it is under domicile or substantial connection, the Court should focus on matters and “the position as at the date of the petition” which is determinative,notwithstanding a holistic approach is otherwise called for (ZJW v SY, para.56).

Discussion 

27.  I have considered all the submissions and relevant documents in reaching this decision, I do not intend to repeat each and every submission advanced by the parties in this decision.

28.  H raised the following factors in submitting W do not have substantial connection at the time of Petition:

(a)  W’s home base is in California – W’s home base all along been in California.  She was a permanent resident and an US citizen.  California has remained where W’s life and career were based. W spent very little time in Hong Kong and majority of W’s belongings remained in their PA house in California which they have been living there since 2019 etc.

(b)  W’s Economic Life is in California – W worked in real estate in California since at least 2009 and had a real estate license around 2010.  W operated her own real estate business. However, W has no income in Hong Kong, nor any MPF here.

(c)  Children’s HK Education intended to be temporary – Children’s education in Hong Kong intended to be temporary in order to gain some international experience and learn Chinese language.  J has already returned to US for schooling in 2024 and G would return to California whenever she could.  Majority of parties’ assets are in US, including 4 landed properties, but there have no landed properties in Hong Kong etc.

29.  W stressed the following in proving her substantial connection to Hong Kong:

(a)  Physical presence – W stressed according to Immigration records, showing W, J and G spent a lot of time before the Petition;

(b)  Permanent Residency – W, H and two children have become permanent residents in Hong Kong since May 2025.  This proves that they have stayed in Hong Kong for a substantial period of not less than seven years for a substantial and a continuous period of not less than 7 years;

(c)  Work or Business Connection – W agrees while her life and career were based in US before, but this altered in April 2018 after the family relocated to Hong Kong.  W stated her US business via SFMC was basically put down.  She worked for TFC HK which is a Chinese non-profit educational programme from July 2018 to July 2019.  Then, W stopped working to take care of the children in the past 6 years.  W only had one referral transaction in 2024 by a friend and her license expired in 2025.

(d)  Education and Social Connection of Children – W stressed both children obtained quality education in IS.  W and children attended medical appointments in Hong Kong and H attended physiotherapy sessions in Hong Kong.  Children are key members of sport clubs.

(e)  Parties’ Social Connections – H&W are both members of Hong Kong Jockey Club and American Club;

(f)  Family Ties – W rebutted H’s argument on W’s sponsorship of W’s mother green card in July 2024 that the green card application was made in 2018 and this was before W relocated to Hong Kong.

(g)  Family Assets – W considers the significant asset of the family, namely H’s shareholding in V, has a market value of HK$1,734,561,206.40 (of HK$4.17 per share)  as of 23 December 2025.

Whether W has substantial connection with Hong Kong for the purpose of s 3(c)  of MCO?

Physical Presence

30.  W is physically present in Hong Kong at the date of Petition (i.e. 15 September 2025).  It is undisputed that she stayed in 67 R Road since January 2024, and her previous residence was at 109 R Road.  Although H submitted this property is not a purchased property, but just a corporate rental accommodation provided by H’s employer, it is undisputed that W has been staying in this home for around 3 years at the time of the Petition. 

31.  According to movement records (Bundle B86-89 and C81-88)  and W’s summary under paragraph 33 of W’s submission, W spent more than 60% of the time in Hong Kong since 2021 every year, while both children also spent more than 75% of time in Hong Kong in 2021-2023. While J spent less time in Hong Kong in 2024, probably due to he went to US for boarding after 2024 Summer, J still came back to Hong Kong from time to time and spent 79 days in Hong Kong, probably due to his return to Hong Kong during school holidays.  G continue to spent more than 75% of time in Hong Kong in 2024-2025. 

32.  H produced a table during the hearing saying his table is a more complete picture of W’s movement records.  H would like to stress W has many trips.  In my view, even by relying on H’s table, W still stay a substantive time in Hong Kong.  H also raised there are 9 days in 2023 without any records, indicating W did not disclose all her traveling documents, and there might be situation that W may use other travel documents out of Hong Kong.  In my view, the missing records are just 9 days in 2023 among a 7 year period, on balance of probabilities, I consider the movement records reflect the true situation of W staying in Hong Kong in the past 7 years.

33.  W spent time outside the jurisdiction with children appears to correspond with normal school holidays and family travel, which is entirely consistent with Hong Kong being their home base.  This is not a case of a person making frequent but short visits to Hong Kong.

Holder of Hong Kong Permanent Identity Card/ HKPR status

34.  W obtained the status of permanent residency in May 2025 is one of the crucial evidence in this case to prove W’s substantial connection to Hong Kong as she only arrived Hong Kong in April 2018, and this shows she stayed in Hong Kong for a substantial and continuous period for not less than seven years, starting from 2018.

W’s Work, Social and Economic Life

35.  It was undisputable that W did not have any connection to Hong Kong before 2018.   However, I consider W is able to show the focus of her life and career shifted since 2018. 

36.  Although it is undisputed that W worked in real estate in California and obtained a real estate license since 2010, from the evidence that W mainly stayed in Hong Kong according to the movement records, I accept her business was slowed down when she moved to Hong Kong in 2018.  W submitted that her real estate license expired in 2025 which evidence also showed her license supposed to be expired in August 2025 (Bundle B8).  Even H showed that W has been transferred funds for the operation of W’s US real estate business SF (Bundle B286-288), I do not see W engaged an active business in her real estate business in US from the evidence. 

37.  W has produced receipts on her medical appointments between 2023 and 2025, and I consider those are clear evidence to show the connection of W.  H argued these are urgent medical care and I am of the view if these are urgent medical care, it actually shows W’s substantial connection as she mainly stays in Hong Kong. 

38.  There is no dispute W is a member of Hong Kong Jockey Club and American Club as H’s spouse.  Although H argued the parties never purchased property in Hong Kong, and lived in the corporate rental accommodation provided by H’s employer, I did not consider this is relevant in denying W’s substantial connection to Hong Kong as W has been living in Hong Kong for 7 years before the issuance of the Petition. 

Education and Social Connection of the Children

39.  It is undisputed that both children studied in IS from 2020 to 2024, and both children spent more than 60% of their time in Hong Kong from 2021- 2023.  G has spent majority of life and attended IS since he was five.  J has been studied in IS for at least 4 full school years.  Although J went to US to study in P in 2024, G continued to study in Grade 4 in IS and spent most of the time in Hong Kong.   Even J went to US to study in 2024, movement records show that he came back to Hong Kong from time to time, and the returning dates appear to be going back to Hong Kong for vacations even if he is studying abroad.

40.  Although H all along argued Children’s education in Hong Kong was intended to be temporary, however, I consider from the actions and the reality, in particular the length of study of J and G, these actions does not reflect the alleged intention of H that it is a temporary arrangement. 

41.  Evidence also showed they attended regular medical and dental care, it reinforced the conclusion that their day to day lives were centred here, not in California.

Family Assets

42.  There is a dispute on where are the main family assets.  H submitted that he owned three houses in California (one for his primary residence and two for rental)  and a house in Florida.  W deny the majority of family assets are in the US and submitted that the most significant asset of the family, H’s interest in V, that H is a shareholder of the company, holds  415,961,920 shares, which have a market value of HK$1,734,561,206.40 (of HK$4.17 per share).  H denied this allegation and stated V is a US-based company.  The entity listed is based in Cayman Islands. H further stated that 415,961,920 shares is wrong, as 112,000,000 shares of which are not real shares but stock options, and none of the 112,000,000 shares are vested. 

43.  In any event, I do not have a full picture on the family assets now as H did not file Form E at the moment. However, there is clear evidence showing H supported W’s living in Hong Kong, no matter through H or by allowance by H’s employer.   It is not denied that H or H’s employer paid for children schooling, helper, rental of R Road apartment etc and paid financial provision to W every month.  Clearly W has economic activities in Hong Kong through spending while she stays in Hong Kong.  I do not consider the factor that family assets are mainly not in Hong Kong can disprove W do not have substantial connection to Hong Kong. 

W’s mother Green Card Application

44.  H submitted that W filed Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, to sponsor her mother for a green card.  H submitted the application has received approval from US Department of Homeland Security.  Her mother was obtained visa to move to the US in late 2024 or early 2025.  As a US citizenship sponsor, W should have represented to US Government that she is resident there by sponsoring her mother’s Green Card. 

45.  W submitted that the green card application was made in 2018, and that was the time when W was asked to affirm her residency.  Although H rebutted W, and speculated W did not inform US Government she no longer resides US and queried why she continue to fill in forms for her mother in applying the re-entry permit of her mother by using the PA address, in my view, by showing W still consider she is a US resident to relevant Government Authorities could not disprove W’s case that she has no substantial connection in Hong Kong.

Comparison of W’s connection in US and Hong Kong

46.  In the present case, while H submitted that the parties still file joint taxes in California, majority of W’s or family belongings remained in PA House, W’s primary and comprehensive medical insurance in California, W uses address of PA House for important mail, including her mother’s re-entry permit application, by comparing to the fact that W’s estate license is expired in 2025, W and G still stayed in the 67 R Road residence, G currently studied in IS for Grade 4, J still returned to Hong Kong despite he went to US for boarding since 2024, in addition to the social connection, say attending medical appointments, club memberships, W certainly has a substantial connection in Hong Kong.

SUMMARY AND ORDERS

47.  By reasons above, I consider W can prove she has a substantial connection to Hong Kong at the time of the Petition.

48.  I order paragraph 1 of the Respondent’s Summons be dismissed.

49.  In relation to costs, W asked for costs to be paid under indemnity basis.  H submitted that costs should be under party and party basis.  After hearing both parties’ submission on costs, I am of the view that it would not be appropriate to award indemnity costs in this particular instance and I exercise my discretion that H do pay W costs on party and party basis.

50.  After hearing parties’ submissions on W’s statement of costs, my summary assessment on W’s costs is $280,000.

51.  In summary, my orders are as follows:

(1)  Paragraph 1 of the Respondent’s Summons be dismissed.

(2)  Costs of and occasioned by arguing paragraph 1 of the Respondent’s Summons be paid by Respondent to the Petitioner on party and party basis forthwith, with certificate of counsel, summarily assessed at $280,000.