Charles Russell Speechlys obtains Hadkinson order in relation to proceedings to return a child to her father

Charles Russell Speechlys Family Partner Vanessa Duff, and Associate Joyce Poon have been successful in obtaining a Hadkinson order from the High Court for a Father in relation to proceedings for the return of his child (who had been unlawfully abducted to Taiwan by the Mother). The Father was also represented by Counsel Azan Marwah from Pantheon Chambers.

The case involved a minor child born in 2021 who was unlawfully abducted by the Mother from Hong Kong to Taiwan in 2024. The Court made a Return Order in June 2024 requiring the Mother to return the child to Hong Kong, but the Mother refused to comply. A prohibition order was obtained against the Mother (which was later extended and re-granted for 10 months) preventing her from leaving Hong Kong. Committal proceedings were also commenced. The Mother still failed to return the child to Hong Kong.

The Mother belatedly issued a variation application seeking for the Return order to be discharged and for the child to remain in Taiwan. The Father subsequently applied for a Hadkinson order to prohibit the Mother from making further applications or submissions in the proceedings unless she complied with the Return Order. The Court found all five conditions for a Hadkinson order satisfied, namely (1) the respondent to the application was in contempt; (2) the contempt was deliberate and continuing; (3) there was an impediment to the course of justice; (4) there was no other realistic and effective remedy; and (5) the order was proportionate to the problem and went no further than necessary to remedy it.

The Court held that the Mother's retention of the child in Taiwan impeded justice by obstructing social investigation reports and making enforcement of future orders impossible. No other remedy had proven to be effective, including the prohibition orders and committal proceedings.

The Court granted the Hadkinson order in favour of the Father, preventing the Mother from making further applications or submissions and ordering that unless the Mother complied with the Return Order by the designated time, the Mother's variation application would be dismissed. The Court rejected the Mother's arguments that the order was not in the child's best interest, finding instead that it was the Mother who had failed to prioritise the child's welfare by refusing to arrange the child's return to Hong Kong. Costs were awarded to the Father on an indemnity basis to show the Court’s strong disapproval of the Mother’s deliberate non-compliance of the Return Order.

Commenting on the decision, Vanessa Duff explains:

Hadkinson orders should only be made in the most exceptional of cases. This case however demonstrates the effectiveness of such orders and their necessity when it comes to the welfare and best interests of a child. It was in effect the only way to secure the return of a child who was kept out of Hong Kong for over 2 years.