HSYJ v. CCMR

HSYJ v. CCMR

On the transcript of the 11 September 2013 hearing the parties unambiguously agreed that the Shatin Centre property would go to the petitioner and the amendment to the sealed consent order was properly made to record that agreed term; the respondent's grounds are unarguable and the intended appeal has no reasonable prospect of success under s63A Cap.336, therefore leave to appeal is refused and the respondent's summons dismissed.

Citation
HSYJ v. CCMR
Parties
Petitioner: HSYJ; Respondent: CCMR
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 August 2016
Case Number
HCMP1255/2016
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings (leave to Appeal to Court of Appeal) / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal (determination on Written Submissions)
Outcome
Respondent's renewed application for leave to appeal refused and respondent's summons dismissed
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Consent Order Amendment, Leave to Appeal, Functus Officio, Costs Assessment, Constructive/resulting Trust, Practice Directions Compliance
Source Language
EN
Family Law Civil Procedure Property Law Ancillary Relief Consent Order Amendment Leave to Appeal Functus Officio Costs Assessment +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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HSYJ

Petitioner

CCMR

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Proceedings (leave to Appeal to Court of Appeal) / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal (determination on Written Submissions)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the parties agreed that the Shatin Centre property would go entirely to the petitioner
  2. 2 Whether the Deputy Judge was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to amend the 11 September 2013 consent order under Order 20 r 11
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's intended appeal had a reasonable prospect of success under s63A District Court Ordinance

Ratio Decidendi

On the transcript of the 11 September 2013 hearing the parties unambiguously agreed that the Shatin Centre property would go to the petitioner and the amendment to the sealed consent order was properly made to record that agreed term; the respondent's grounds are unarguable and the intended appeal has no reasonable prospect of success under s63A Cap.336, therefore leave to appeal is refused and the respondent's summons dismissed.

Court Disposition

Respondent's renewed application for leave to appeal refused and respondent's summons dismissed

Orders

  • The respondent's summons is dismissed
  • No party may request a reconsideration of the determination under Order 59 rule 2A(7) at an oral hearing inter partes