ZYM also known as ZYM v. LYK AND OTHERS

ZYM also known as ZYM v. LYK AND OTHERS

Leave to appeal refused because the Court was not satisfied the proposed appeal had a reasonable prospect of success nor was there any other reason in the interests of justice; the trial judge’s findings of sham arrangements, concealment of assets and the assessment of the husband’s earning capacity as a basis for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
ZYM also known as ZYM v. LYK AND OTHERS
Parties
Petitioner (wife): ZYM; 1st Respondent (husband): 1st Respondent; 2nd Respondent: 2nd Respondent; 3rd Respondent: 3rd Respondent
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 November 2014
Case Number
HCMP1828/2014
Procedural Posture
Ancillary Relief in Divorce; Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Leave to Appeal Application (hcmp 1828/2014)
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; costs ordered against the 1st and 3rd Respondents; provisional costs fixed
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Periodical Payments, Sham Transactions, Disclosure of Assets, Leave to Appeal, Costs Orders
Source Language
en
Family Law Civil Procedure Costs Appeals Ancillary Relief Periodical Payments Sham Transactions Disclosure of Assets +2 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ZYM

Petitioner (wife)

1st Respondent

1st Respondent (husband)

2nd Respondent

2nd Respondent

3rd Respondent

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Ancillary Relief in Divorce; Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Leave to Appeal Application (hcmp 1828/2014)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether trial judge erred in finding a sham transfer to put family assets beyond the wife
  2. 2 Whether the 1st Respondent (and/or 2nd Respondent) had beneficial interest or control in Shing Fat
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge misapprehended evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal refused because the Court was not satisfied the proposed appeal had a reasonable prospect of success nor was there any other reason in the interests of justice; the trial judge’s findings of sham arrangements, concealment of assets and the assessment of the husband’s earning capacity as a basis for periodical payments were not shown to be liable to successful challenge; costs discretion was properly exercised and provisional costs were fixed.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; costs ordered against the 1st and 3rd Respondents; provisional costs fixed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused
  • No party may request this determination to be reconsidered at an oral inter partes hearing (Order 59 Rule 2A(8))