李 對 梁

李 對 梁

The court affirmed the lower judge's finding that petitioner had been explained the terms and had time to consider them, produced no sufficient evidence of undue influence, misrepresentation or coercion, and therefore failed to demonstrate realistic prospects of success; accordingly leave to appeal was refused.

Citation
李 對 梁
Parties
Petitioner: 李; Respondent: 梁
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 October 2012
Case Number
HCMP1491/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal (late)
Outcome
leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Consent Orders, Set Aside for Misrepresentation/duress, Non Disclosure, Leave to Appeal, Financial Settlement, Child Maintenance
Source Language
CH
Family Law Matrimonial Law Child Support Procedural Law Consent Orders Set Aside for Misrepresentation/duress Non Disclosure Leave to Appeal +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

李

Petitioner

梁

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal (late)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a consent order obtained by agreement can be set aside for duress, fear, misrepresentation or material non-disclosure
  2. 2 Whether petitioner had sufficient grounds and realistic prospects of success to obtain leave to appeal
  3. 3 Whether petitioner had adequate opportunity and advice before signing the consent order

Ratio Decidendi

The court affirmed the lower judge's finding that petitioner had been explained the terms and had time to consider them, produced no sufficient evidence of undue influence, misrepresentation or coercion, and therefore failed to demonstrate realistic prospects of success; accordingly leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is refused.
  • By reason of Order 59 rule 2A(8) of the High Court Rules the respondent is not permitted to request the court under rule 2A(7) to re-consider the grant of leave to appeal in a hearing where both parties attend.