CWG v. MH AND OTHERS

CWG v. MH AND OTHERS

The court found that R2 had not complied in full with the Discovery Order as to items 6, 8, 9 and 12 because the affidavits were illusory or showed no evidence of a conscientious effort to obtain and produce documents within R2's power (security agreements, sale documentation for cars and timepieces, and relevant company accounts); therefore the non-compliance stood and costs would follow.

Citation
CWG v. MH AND OTHERS
Parties
Applicant: CWG; 1st Respondent: MH; 2nd Respondent: WH; 3rd Respondent: MVF LIMITED; 4th Respondent: WM; 5th Respondent: EH; 6th Respondent: LS LIMITED; 7th Respondent: BM
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 May 2014
Case Number
HCMP643/2012
Procedural Posture
Hadkinson Order / Discovery Compliance in Matrimonial Ancillary Relief Proceedings / Remitted Interlocutory Hearing on Compliance by Court of Appeal; Decision on Compliance in Chambers
Outcome
R2 found not to have complied in full with the Discovery Order in respect of items 6, 8, 9 and 12 of Schedule 1.
Legal Topics
Hadkinson Order, Discovery Order Compliance, Specific Discovery, Affidavit Conclusiveness, Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Family Law Evidence/disclosure Contempt of Court Asset Tracing Hadkinson Order Discovery Order Compliance Specific Discovery +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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CWG

Applicant

MH

1st Respondent

WH

2nd Respondent

MVF LIMITED

3rd Respondent

WM

4th Respondent

EH

5th Respondent

LS LIMITED

6th Respondent

BM

7th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Hadkinson Order / Discovery Compliance in Matrimonial Ancillary Relief Proceedings / Remitted Interlocutory Hearing on Compliance by Court of Appeal; Decision on Compliance in Chambers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether R2 complied in full with the Discovery Order in respect of items 6, 8, 9 and 12 of Schedule 1
  2. 2 Whether affidavits filed on behalf of R2 were conclusive or were illusory/wilfully defective
  3. 3 Whether R2 made a conscientious effort to obtain and produce documents within her power

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that R2 had not complied in full with the Discovery Order as to items 6, 8, 9 and 12 because the affidavits were illusory or showed no evidence of a conscientious effort to obtain and produce documents within R2's power (security agreements, sale documentation for cars and timepieces, and relevant company accounts); therefore the non-compliance stood and costs would follow.

Court Disposition

R2 found not to have complied in full with the Discovery Order in respect of items 6, 8, 9 and 12 of Schedule 1.

Orders

  • R2 has not complied with the Discovery Order in respect of items 6, 8, 9 and 12.
  • Costs to be costs in the cause of W's Summons, with certificate for two Counsel.