EL v. CFL

EL v. CFL

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success under s63A; the grounds primarily attacked findings of fact and the applicant did not show the judge misunderstood evidence or overlooked indisputable material. The judge's analysis that the HK$10 million constituted an asset available for division was supported by the record and not shown to be wrong.

Citation
EL v. CFL
Parties
Respondent (petitioner): EL; Applicant (respondent): CFL
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 November 2015
Case Number
HCMP2523/2015
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings on Intended Appeal From FCMC 4685/2012 / Application for Leave to Appeal (court of Appeal)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Division of Matrimonial Property, Leave to Appeal, Costs, Disposition/add Back/gift/loan
Source Language
EN
Family Law Appeal Civil Procedure Ancillary Relief Division of Matrimonial Property Leave to Appeal Costs Disposition/add Back/gift/loan

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

Parties

EL

Respondent (petitioner)

CFL

Applicant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Proceedings on Intended Appeal From FCMC 4685/2012 / Application for Leave to Appeal (court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted under section 63A of the District Court Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether HK$10,000,000 constituted an asset of the Husband or a loan/third-party disposition excluded from marital assets
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in fact-finding or misunderstood evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success under s63A; the grounds primarily attacked findings of fact and the applicant did not show the judge misunderstood evidence or overlooked indisputable material. The judge's analysis that the HK$10 million constituted an asset available for division was supported by the record and not shown to be wrong.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused.
  • Husband to pay the Wife's costs of the application, summarily assessed at HK$28,000.00.