The judge of the first instance in a legal case ruled that the Hong Kong court had jurisdiction to hear the wife's divorce petition. The husband disagreed and appealed the ruling, and contended that neither the husband nor the wife nor their children lived in Hong Kong, so the Hong Kong court should have no jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeal held that the only question to be asked (decided) was on the date of the divorce petition whether the husband have a "substantial connection" with Hong Kong, which fell within the statutory meaning. The issue is "highly fact-sensitive". In this case, the husband lived in Guangdong, China, but frequently came to Hong Kong to run his business (visiting about 60 to 80 days a year, usually without overnight stays).
In 2010, he apparently had strong ties to Hong Kong before selling his stake in a listed company he founded. Thereafter, he had still maintained close ties to Hong Kong by serving as chairman, managing director and executive director of the listed company. Hong Kong remained the "home base" for his finances and business. His "rich" income also comes from such business in Hong Kong.
Although her husband moved back to China in 2000, he never ceased to exist in Hong Kong. He continued to maintain a consistent "economic" and "social" presence in Hong Kong. Therefore, the Appeal Court ruled that at the time of the wife's divorce petition in June 2018, the husband still had a substantive connection with Hong Kong which fell within the statutory meaning. Appeal Court ruled that the first-instance judge did not make any mistake, and the Hong Kong court had the power to hear the wife's divorce petition. The husband's appeal was dismissed and the husband shall bear the wife's legal costs.
[Judgment delivered on 8 April 2022] Appeal Case of CACV 350/2021- JQ (Husband) vs. CLH (Wife) [2022] HKCA 489
