PYS v. CDY

PYS v. CDY

Leave to appeal was refused because the applications were substantially delayed, lacked a reasonable prospect of success on grounds that the impugned orders were made lawfully after full consideration (including the child's welfare), the sale of the property followed court orders and consent, and the discretionary costs and ancillary relief orders did not disclose grounds for appellate interference.

Citation
PYS v. CDY
Parties
Applicant (wife): pYs; Respondent (husband): Respondent
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 June 2010
Case Number
HCMP987/2010
Procedural Posture
Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Proceedings (leave to Appeal) / Application for Leave to Appeal (renewed and Out of Time)
Outcome
Applications for leave to appeal against Orders 1-5 and the Access Suspension Order refused; costs order nisi made against the wife
Legal Topics
Custody and Access, Ancillary Relief and Division of Matrimonial Assets, Sale of Matrimonial Property, Non Molestation Injunction, Costs Orders, Leave to Appeal
Source Language
EN
Family Law Civil Procedure Property Law Custody and Access Ancillary Relief and Division of Matrimonial Assets Sale of Matrimonial Property Non Molestation Injunction Costs Orders +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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

pYs

Applicant (wife)

Respondent

Respondent (husband)

Procedural Posture

Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Proceedings (leave to Appeal) / Application for Leave to Appeal (renewed and Out of Time)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against Orders 1-5 and the Access Suspension Order
  2. 2 Whether sale of Mount Kellett Road property was valid and can be annulled by the wife
  3. 3 Whether suspension of wife's access to child was justified in the child's best interests given wife's refusal to engage in therapeutic counselling

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the applications were substantially delayed, lacked a reasonable prospect of success on grounds that the impugned orders were made lawfully after full consideration (including the child's welfare), the sale of the property followed court orders and consent, and the discretionary costs and ancillary relief orders did not disclose grounds for appellate interference.

Court Disposition

Applications for leave to appeal against Orders 1-5 and the Access Suspension Order refused; costs order nisi made against the wife

Orders

  • Leave to appeal against Orders 1 to 5 refused
  • Leave to appeal against the Access Suspension Order refused