IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES
NUMBER 14138 OF 2014
----------------------------

BETWEEN
DA Petitioner
and
SY Respondent
----------------------------

FACTS:
R was born and raised in the Mainland. He received his bachelor and master’s degrees at a
University in the Mainland and worked in another university for some time before coming to
Hong Kong in 1991 to pursue another master’s degree at a university in Hong Kong which I
shall refer to as “A University”. P has a similar background. She was also born, raised and
received university education in the Mainland. She came to Hong Kong to pursue her master’s
degree at the same university as R (ie the A University). According to R, since the parties spent
a lot of time together in the same laboratory, their relationship soon developed into an intimate
one and they got married later in November 1998. Back in Hong Kong, between 2004 and 2006
R purchased 4 flats (“the HK Properties”) for investment purpose.
P petitioned for divorce on 24 October 2014 on the grounds of R’s unreasonable behavior. One
of the particulars of unreasonable behavior is R has a mistress who shall be referred to as NT. P
also pleaded R is domiciled in Hong Kong and resides at an address in Sham Shui Po, one of
the HK Properties. Subsequently, P applied for leave to re-amend her Petition; this is the very
application before me. In brief, what she seeks to plead is that as an alternative to R being
domiciled in Hong Kong, he also has substantial connection with Hong Kong by which the
court would have jurisdiction over the divorce proceedings by virtue of section 3(c) of
the Matrimonial Causes Ordinance (Cap 179) (“the Ordinance”). As regards the particulars of
unreasonable behavior, again in brevity, she seeks to provide more particulars on R’s extra-
marital affair.

R commenced a parallel divorce proceeding in the People’s Court of Wuhou District. The
Court is clear in mind that the most crucial factual issue in dispute is whether R has a mistress
and a family in Hong Kong as alleged by P. The Court shall deal with this factual issue in the
following sequence:

1. R’s challenge on the jurisdiction of the court, ie whether R has a substantial

connection with Hong Kong;

2. R’s application to strike out the Amended Petition on the ground that it is
frivolous, scandalous and vexatious or otherwise an abuse of court process; and
 3. P’s application to re-amend the Petition.
ISSUE:
Whether the case at bar is under the Divorce Jurisdiction of this Court;
RULING:

Section 3 of the Ordinance provides that:

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
either of the parties to the marriage had a substantial connection with Hong Kong at the date
of the petition or application.

R’s case is that before P’s petition for divorce he would return to Sichuan to stay with P and the
Child when he had time; and instead of coming to Hong Kong as before, P and the Child would
travel to Shenzhen to visit him. Therefore, according to R, neither party could have any
substantial connection with Hong Kong since August 2011.

It is glaringly apparent that R wants desperately that his divorce is to be determined in the
Mainland while P, with equal sentiment, wants to have it dealt with in Hong Kong. Given that
both parties have seen their marriage has come to an end and that the case has dragged on for
over 2 years, I am of the view that the parties should move on to wind-up their affairs as soon
as possible.

At the heart of P’s application for amendment is whether R has been maintaining a family
with NT in Hong Kong. If the answer is in the affirmative, P argues that R would have a
substantial connection with Hong Kong thereby giving the court jurisdiction to deal with P’s
divorce. The amendment, if granted, would also provide P with additional particulars of R’s
unreasonable behavior. Both parties have not advanced serious arguments regarding this
application. R’s opposition seemed to have premised on the “substantial connection”
argument only. With the conclusion that I have come to regarding the factual issues in
dispute, I have no doubt that the amendment is necessary for disposing fairly of the cause or
matter and has to be allowed and I so order.

For these reasons, I am not prepared to strike out the petition.

( I. Wong )
District Judge