LPK v. SH AND ANOTHER

LPK v. SH AND ANOTHER

The court exercised its discretion under s.17A(4) of the Matrimonial Causes Ordinance to make the decree nisi pronounced on 17 November 2011 absolute forthwith because circumstances made it desirable to do so and the Petitioner provided a satisfactory undertaking to make such financial provision for the Respondent as the court may approve; the DA Summons was not premature when assessed at the hearing; costs ordered to the Petitioner against the 1st Respondent.

Citation
LPK v. SH AND ANOTHER
Parties
Petitioner: LPK; 1st Respondent: SH also known as HSC; 2nd Respondent: HSH
Court
Family Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 June 2012
Case Number
FCMC14402/2011
Procedural Posture
Matrimonial Causes (divorce) / Hearing of Summons to Expedite Decree Absolute (da Summons) and Consideration of Rule 56 B Notice Under S.17 a Mco; Decision on Expedition and Costs
Outcome
Decree Nisi pronounced on 17 November 2011 made absolute forthwith; costs awarded to Petitioner; Registrar directed to process prescribed form 5.
Legal Topics
Decree Absolute, Section 17 a Matrimonial Causes Ordinance, Recusal, Costs Follow the Event, Undertaking for Financial Provision, Part IIA MPPO Post Divorce Financial Relief
Source Language
EN
Family Law Matrimonial Causes Civil Procedure Conflict of Laws Decree Absolute Section 17 a Matrimonial Causes Ordinance Recusal Costs Follow the Event +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LPK

Petitioner

SH also known as HSC

1st Respondent

HSH

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Matrimonial Causes (divorce) / Hearing of Summons to Expedite Decree Absolute (da Summons) and Consideration of Rule 56 B Notice Under S.17 a Mco; Decision on Expedition and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the DA Summons was premature
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise s.17A(4) MCO to make the decree nisi absolute notwithstanding the Rule 56B notice
  3. 3 Whether the Husband's Rule 56B notice and prior Recusal application were tactical delays

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its discretion under s.17A(4) of the Matrimonial Causes Ordinance to make the decree nisi pronounced on 17 November 2011 absolute forthwith because circumstances made it desirable to do so and the Petitioner provided a satisfactory undertaking to make such financial provision for the Respondent as the court may approve; the DA Summons was not premature when assessed at the hearing; costs ordered to the Petitioner against the 1st Respondent.

Court Disposition

Decree Nisi pronounced on 17 November 2011 made absolute forthwith; costs awarded to Petitioner; Registrar directed to process prescribed form 5.

Orders

  • Decree Nisi pronounced on 17 November 2011 be made absolute forthwith
  • The 1st Respondent do pay the Petitioner’s costs of the Summons dated 15 November 2011 including all costs reserved, to be taxed if not agreed