LCYP v. JEK

LCYP v. JEK

CTC was joined as 2nd respondent because valid service in Delaware had been established, the joinder was necessary and convenient to determine whether the JK Trust funds were available to the Husband and to facilitate enforcement of any order, and Order 15 rule 6(2)(b) authorises joinder where a third party's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 237
Parties
Petitioner: LCYP; 1st Respondent (husband): JEK; 2nd Respondent (trustee): Commonwealth Trust Company (CTC)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 January 2019
Case Number
HCMC3/2018
Procedural Posture
Matrimonial Ancillary Relief and S17 Setting Aside Application / Joinder Hearing (pre Trial Directions); PTR Fixed; Trial to Be Heard With Main Ancillary Relief Trial
Outcome
Joinder granted.
Legal Topics
Joinder of Third Parties, Service of Process, Setting Aside Transactions Under S17 MPPO, Jurisdiction in Personam, Enforcement of Foreign Orders
Source Language
en
Family Law Civil Procedure Trusts Law Private International Law/enforcement Joinder of Third Parties Service of Process Setting Aside Transactions Under S17 MPPO Jurisdiction in Personam +1 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LCYP

Petitioner

JEK

1st Respondent (husband)

Commonwealth Trust Company (CTC)

2nd Respondent (trustee)

Procedural Posture

Matrimonial Ancillary Relief and S17 Setting Aside Application / Joinder Hearing (pre Trial Directions); PTR Fixed; Trial to Be Heard With Main Ancillary Relief Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Commonwealth Trust Company should be joined as a respondent
  2. 2 Whether service on CTC was valid under Delaware law
  3. 3 Whether the court has jurisdiction under s17 to set aside transfers to an overseas trust and to make orders enforceable in Delaware

Ratio Decidendi

CTC was joined as 2nd respondent because valid service in Delaware had been established, the joinder was necessary and convenient to determine whether the JK Trust funds were available to the Husband and to facilitate enforcement of any order, and Order 15 rule 6(2)(b) authorises joinder where a third party's presence is necessary for just and complete determination of disputed issues; the Husband did not oppose joinder.

Court Disposition

Joinder granted.

Orders

  • Commonwealth Trust Company to be joined and named as 2nd respondent
  • Husband to be renamed 1st respondent