This matter concerned a Child who was abducted by her Father and removed out of Hong Kong. In the Judgment, Madam Justice Au-Yeung helpfully distilled and identified the appropriate procedure in seeking a Location Order – there being no precedent on point.
Details of the Application are as follows.
In the divorce proceedings, the Applicant-Mother seeks sole custody, care and control, with reasonable access to the Father. Parties agreed for interim care and control to be to the Mother, yet on the first day of the Father’s access, the Father did not return the Child.
The Mother attempted to locate the Child through various channels, including the Department of Justice and Hong Kong Police, but these attempts have not been fruitful. Simultaneously, the Mother obtained, inter alia, a Non-Removal Order and an order directing the Father to return the Child to the care of the Mother, from the Family Court. These Orders were not complied with. It later transpired that the Father had abducted and removed the Child out of Hong Kong.
The Mother then sought a Location Order against 4 Interested Parties whom she believed were persons who held information about the Child’s whereabouts or may reasonably be able to obtain such information. Madam Justice Au-Yeung found in favour of the Mother and granted the said Location Order. Each of the Father and the 4 Interested Parties must within 24 hours provide to the Mother information on the Child’s whereabouts. The precise procedure in making applications of this sort, as endorsed by the Learned Judge, is set out in the Judgment.
Jeffrey Li acted for the Applicant, instructed by Patricia Ho & Associates.
The Court’s reasons for judgment can be found here.