D v. W AND OTHERS

D v. W AND OTHERS

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the proposed appeal impermissibly sought to challenge primary findings of fact, including that monies advanced by the wife's parents were loans and that the transfer to Fortune Wealth settled those loans; there was evidence to support those findings and no...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
D v. W AND OTHERS
Parties
Petitioner: D; Respondent: 1st Respondent; Respondent: 2nd Respondent; Respondent: 3rd Respondent; Respondent: 4th Respondent; Respondent: 5th Respondent; Respondent: 6th Respondent
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 January 2012
Case Number
HCMP2480/2011
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings (leave to Appeal From Family Court Ancillary Relief Decision) / Application for Leave to Appeal to Court of Appeal Under S.63 a District Court Ordinance; Determined on Written Submissions
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; costs ordered against husband; order that no party may request reconsideration at an oral hearing under RHC O.59 r.2A(8).
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Presumption of Advancement, Presumption of Resulting Trust, Common Intention Constructive Trust, Findings of Fact and Appellate Review, Leave to Appeal, Costs and Certification
Source Language
en
Family Law Trusts and Equitable Interests Property Law Civil Procedure Appeal Procedure Costs Ancillary Relief Presumption of Advancement +5 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D

Petitioner

1st Respondent

Respondent

2nd Respondent

Respondent

3rd Respondent

Respondent

4th Respondent

Respondent

5th Respondent

Respondent

6th Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Proceedings (leave to Appeal From Family Court Ancillary Relief Decision) / Application for Leave to Appeal to Court of Appeal Under S.63 a District Court Ordinance; Determined on Written Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Property held in the name of Fortune Wealth was beneficially owned by the husband or the wife at time of the Consent Order
  3. 3 Whether monies advanced by wife's parents were gifts or loans and the legal consequences

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the proposed appeal impermissibly sought to challenge primary findings of fact, including that monies advanced by the wife's parents were loans and that the transfer to Fortune Wealth settled those loans; there was evidence to support those findings and no basis to conclude they were plainly wrong, so the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and leave was refused; costs were ordered and procedural restrictions on reconsideration imposed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed; costs ordered against husband; order that no party may request reconsideration at an oral hearing under RHC O.59 r.2A(8).

Orders

  • Dismiss the husband's summons dated 1 December 2011 seeking leave to appeal
  • Make an order nisi that the husband pay the costs of the application to the respondents (the petitioner and 2nd to 5th respondents) with a certificate for two counsel