李月明 對 黃洛賢（前稱黃作龍）

李月明 對 黃洛賢（前稱黃作龍）

The court accepted the applicant's evidence that paragraph 4 was premised on paragraph 3 (respondent being primary carer and undertakings about the property) and that subsequent family court variation of custody and respondent's breach by creating a charge over the property materially undermined the basis of paragraph 4; accordingly paragraph 4 is set aside and costs awarded to the applicant.

Citation
李月明 對 黃洛賢（前稱黃作龍）
Parties
Applicant/plaintiff: 李月明; Respondent/defendant: 黃洛賢（前稱黃作龍）
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 June 2017
Case Number
DCMP1051/2016
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Consent Order (family/property) / Judgment (trial Concluded)
Outcome
Paragraph 4 of the consent order dated 18 November 2013 is set aside; applicant succeeds; costs awarded to applicant
Legal Topics
Consent Order Set Aside, Child Custody, Mortgage/charge on Family Property, Non Disclosure and Change of Circumstances, Costs
Source Language
CH
Family Law Property Law Civil Procedure Enforcement Consent Order Set Aside Child Custody Mortgage/charge on Family Property Non Disclosure and Change of Circumstances +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

李月明

Applicant/plaintiff

黃洛賢（前稱黃作龍）

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Set Aside Consent Order (family/property) / Judgment (trial Concluded)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraph 4 of the consent order dated 18 Nov 2013 should be set aside due to events after the order
  2. 2 Whether s.11 Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance applies
  3. 3 Whether changes to child custody arrangements and a subsequent mortgage/charge on the property undermined the basis of the consent order

Ratio Decidendi

The court accepted the applicant's evidence that paragraph 4 was premised on paragraph 3 (respondent being primary carer and undertakings about the property) and that subsequent family court variation of custody and respondent's breach by creating a charge over the property materially undermined the basis of paragraph 4; accordingly paragraph 4 is set aside and costs awarded to the applicant.

Court Disposition

Paragraph 4 of the consent order dated 18 November 2013 is set aside; applicant succeeds; costs awarded to applicant

Orders

  • Paragraph 4 of the consent order dated 18 November 2013 is set aside
  • The respondent (黃洛賢) must pay the applicant’s (李月明) costs of this proceeding; if parties cannot agree the amount costs to be assessed by the court