P v. L

P v. L

The court found that while the husbands behaviour warranted protection for the wife by a non-molestation order restraining assault or threats, the conduct did not justify the draconian remedy of an ouster order. The wife's covert re-occupation of the master bedroom and delay in pursuing the ouster application...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
P v. L
Parties
Petitioner (wife): P; Respondent (husband): L
Court
Family Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 October 2006
Case Number
FCMC3861/2002
Procedural Posture
Matrimonial Causes / Hearing and Judgment on Applications for Non Molestation and Ouster Orders
Outcome
Part continuation of non-molestation order; ouster order refused; husband restrained from assaulting or threatening the wife; costs order nisi against wife for three quarters of husband's costs
Legal Topics
Non Molestation Order, Ouster Order, Domestic Violence Ordinance S3, Possession of Matrimonial Home, Costs
Source Language
en
Family Law Domestic Violence Property Law Civil Procedure Non Molestation Order Ouster Order Domestic Violence Ordinance S3 Possession of Matrimonial Home +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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P

Petitioner (wife)

L

Respondent (husband)

Procedural Posture

Matrimonial Causes / Hearing and Judgment on Applications for Non Molestation and Ouster Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to continue/grant a non-molestation order
  2. 2 Whether to grant an ouster order excluding the husband from the matrimonial home
  3. 3 Application of s3(2) Domestic Violence Ordinance criteria (conduct, needs, resources, children's needs)

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the husbands behaviour warranted protection for the wife by a non-molestation order restraining assault or threats, the conduct did not justify the draconian remedy of an ouster order. The wife's covert re-occupation of the master bedroom and delay in pursuing the ouster application undermined her case; the husband's incidents were better characterised as emotional outbursts partly explainable by provocation and hearing impairment, so exclusion was not justified.

Court Disposition

Part continuation of non-molestation order; ouster order refused; husband restrained from assaulting or threatening the wife; costs order nisi against wife for three quarters of husband's costs

Orders

  • Husband restrained from assaulting, threatening to assault or using or attempting to use physical violence upon the wife (non-molestation injunction)
  • Application for an ouster order excluding the husband from the matrimonial home is refused