ZQA AND OTHERS v. SCC AND ANOTHER

ZQA AND OTHERS v. SCC AND ANOTHER

The contempts were wilful, deliberate and contumacious with inordinate delay (around 20 months), causing serious prejudice to the applicants (including two minors) and no sufficient mitigation (reliance on legal advice rejected absent concession by the lawyer); the contempts had not been adequately purged and suspension was unjustified; therefore immediate custodial imprisonment was warranted and three months' immediate imprisonment on each respondent was appropriate.

Citation
[2020] HKFC 155
Parties
1st Applicant: ZQA; 2nd Applicant (minor Suing by Mother and Next Friend Zqa): SSN; 3rd Applicant (minor Suing by Mother and Next Friend Zqa): SYS; 1st Respondent: SCC; 2nd Respondent: SKK
Court
Family Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
31 July 2020
Case Number
FCMP129/2018
Procedural Posture
Committal for Contempt of Court (miscellaneous Proceedings) / Sentencing/decision (post‑trial)
Outcome
Both 1st and 2nd Respondents found guilty of contempt and each sentenced to 3 months' immediate imprisonment; no suspension of sentence granted.
Legal Topics
Committal, Sentencing for Contempt, Disclosure Orders, Interrogatories, Mitigation
Source Language
EN
Civil Contempt Family Law Civil Procedure Inheritance Law Committal Sentencing for Contempt Disclosure Orders Interrogatories +1 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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ZQA

1st Applicant

SSN

2nd Applicant (minor Suing by Mother and Next Friend Zqa)

SYS

3rd Applicant (minor Suing by Mother and Next Friend Zqa)

SCC

1st Respondent

SKK

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Committal for Contempt of Court (miscellaneous Proceedings) / Sentencing/decision (post‑trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether immediate custodial sentence is warranted for contempt of court
  2. 2 Whether reliance on erroneous legal advice mitigates culpability
  3. 3 Whether contempt has been purged

Ratio Decidendi

The contempts were wilful, deliberate and contumacious with inordinate delay (around 20 months), causing serious prejudice to the applicants (including two minors) and no sufficient mitigation (reliance on legal advice rejected absent concession by the lawyer); the contempts had not been adequately purged and suspension was unjustified; therefore immediate custodial imprisonment was warranted and three months' immediate imprisonment on each respondent was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Both 1st and 2nd Respondents found guilty of contempt and each sentenced to 3 months' immediate imprisonment; no suspension of sentence granted.

Orders

  • 1st Respondent (SCC) sentenced to 3 months' immediate imprisonment for contempt of court pursuant to findings in FCMP 129/2018.
  • 2nd Respondent (SKK) sentenced to 3 months' immediate imprisonment for contempt of court pursuant to findings in FCMP 129/2018.