LCKLM nee CKLM v. LWK

LCKLM nee CKLM v. LWK

Although respondent is in contempt for non-compliance with the Undertakings, the court exercised its discretion to refuse a Hadkinson stay because the appeal challenges the subject matter of the non-compliance, there are other enforcement mechanisms available, the contempt does not so impede the course of justice as to bar hearing, and respondent has raised arguable grounds (drafting ambiguity and mistake) giving reasonable prospects of success on grounds 1 and 2; accordingly the Hadkinson summons is dismissed and leave to appeal granted on grounds 1 and 2 without conditions.

Citation
LCKLM nee CKLM v. LWK
Parties
Petitioner (wife): LCKLM nee CKLM; Respondent (husband): LWK
Court
Family Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 August 2016
Case Number
FCMC11425/2011
Procedural Posture
Matrimonial Causes (district Court) / Ruling on Hadkinson Summons and Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Petitioner’s Hadkinson summons dismissed; respondent granted leave to appeal on grounds 1 and 2 of his draft grounds of appeal.
Legal Topics
Hadkinson Order, Leave to Appeal, Consent Order Interpretation, Enforcement of Undertakings, Contempt Sanctions
Source Language
EN
Family Law Contempt of Court Civil Procedure Appeal Hadkinson Order Leave to Appeal Consent Order Interpretation Enforcement of Undertakings +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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LCKLM nee CKLM

Petitioner (wife)

LWK

Respondent (husband)

Procedural Posture

Matrimonial Causes (district Court) / Ruling on Hadkinson Summons and Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent is in contempt of the Consent Order/Undertakings
  2. 2 Whether non-compliance by respondent impedes the course of justice
  3. 3 Whether there are other effective means to secure compliance

Ratio Decidendi

Although respondent is in contempt for non-compliance with the Undertakings, the court exercised its discretion to refuse a Hadkinson stay because the appeal challenges the subject matter of the non-compliance, there are other enforcement mechanisms available, the contempt does not so impede the course of justice as to bar hearing, and respondent has raised arguable grounds (drafting ambiguity and mistake) giving reasonable prospects of success on grounds 1 and 2; accordingly the Hadkinson summons is dismissed and leave to appeal granted on grounds 1 and 2 without conditions.

Court Disposition

Petitioner’s Hadkinson summons dismissed; respondent granted leave to appeal on grounds 1 and 2 of his draft grounds of appeal.

Orders

  • Dismiss the petitioner\u2019s summons dated 9 May 2016; costs of the summons to the respondent with certificate for two counsel (order nisi)
  • Grant leave to appeal to the respondent on grounds 1 and 2; costs of the leave application to be in the cause of the appeal with certificate for two counsel (order nisi)