The High Court set aside an earlier order allowing a woman to seek financial relief in Ireland following her Hong Kong divorce, then refused her renewed application for leave. Mr Justice Garrett Sheehan ruled that Hong Kong was the appropriate venue for the claim.
The judgment concerns a procedural application, not a trial of the wife’s allegations about the marriage or the divorce. The husband sought to set aside leave granted ex parte in December 2005 under Part III of the Family Law Act 1995. The wife had also challenged recognition in Ireland of the Hong Kong divorce, alleging duress and lack of free and voluntary consent. She withdrew that part of her claim in October 2007.
In her original affidavit, the wife said she could not successfully obtain financial relief in Hong Kong. The judge found that this was materially misleading: expert evidence from both parties’ Hong Kong lawyers and the divorce hearing transcript showed that her claim for periodic maintenance remained open there. He held that the court had inherent jurisdiction to set aside the ex parte leave order and that the non-disclosure was serious enough to justify doing so.
The judge then considered whether to grant leave afresh. He said a statutory requirement was met because both parties had lived in Ireland for more than a year. But, weighing the factors under the 1995 Act, he gave greater weight to their connections with Hong Kong: the couple had lived there throughout their marriage, the wife was from Hong Kong, and potential witnesses to the disputed events were based there. He also gave great weight to the wife’s unexercised right to seek financial relief in Hong Kong, while noting that her explanation for not pursuing it was absent.
The wife alleged that her husband had dominated her and that she had not freely agreed to the separation terms or participated in the Hong Kong divorce hearing. The judge said those issues would require a trial and noted that the 1997 agreement and the hearing transcript appeared, at a preliminary stage, to support her allegations. He did not decide whether they were true. He also considered arguments about the parties’ assets and the husband’s home in Ireland, but concluded that Hong Kong was the appropriate venue.
The court therefore discharged the earlier leave order and refused fresh leave to pursue Part III relief in Ireland. The ruling did not determine the wife’s underlying allegations or make financial relief orders.