CWG v. MH AND OTHERS

CWG v. MH AND OTHERS

The court held that the Interim Order was properly given effect from 14 March 2012 because jurisdiction was established by the inter partes Form 28 and party conduct on 20 March 2012; it granted a Hadkinson order against the 1st Respondent requiring payment of $3,396,000 arrears before he is heard on appeal and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
CWG v. MH AND OTHERS
Parties
Applicant: CWG; 1st Respondent: MH; 2nd Respondent: WH; 3rd Respondent: MVFL; 4th Respondent: WM; 5th Respondent: EH; 6th Respondent: LSL; 7th Respondent: BM
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 March 2014
Case Number
HCMP264/2014
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal Concerning Part IIA MPPO Financial Relief and Related Civil Applications / Hearing of Interlocutory Applications (hadkinson Orders, Security for Costs) and Application for Leave to Appeal a Stay Ruling at Court of Appeal
Outcome
Interlocutory applications partly granted and partly dismissed: Hadkinson order against 1st Respondent granted; Hadkinson application against 2nd Respondent adjourned/remitted; security for costs dismissed; leave to appeal stay ruling refused.
Legal Topics
Maintenance Pending Suit, Part IIA MPPO Periodical Payments (s.29 Ad), Hadkinson Orders, Security for Costs, Stay of Execution, Disclosure/comtempt
Source Language
en
Family Law Civil Procedure Appeal Enforcement Discovery and Contempt Maintenance Pending Suit Part IIA MPPO Periodical Payments (s.29 Ad) Hadkinson Orders +3 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CWG

Applicant

MH

1st Respondent

WH

2nd Respondent

MVFL

3rd Respondent

WM

4th Respondent

EH

5th Respondent

LSL

6th Respondent

BM

7th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal Concerning Part IIA MPPO Financial Relief and Related Civil Applications / Hearing of Interlocutory Applications (hadkinson Orders, Security for Costs) and Application for Leave to Appeal a Stay Ruling at Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Hong Kong court had jurisdiction to make an interim order for periodical payments with effect from 14 March 2012
  2. 2 Whether the 1st Respondent should be barred from being heard on appeal (Hadkinson order) until he purges contempt by payment of arrears
  3. 3 Whether the 2nd Respondent should be barred for non-compliance with a discovery order

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Interim Order was properly given effect from 14 March 2012 because jurisdiction was established by the inter partes Form 28 and party conduct on 20 March 2012; it granted a Hadkinson order against the 1st Respondent requiring payment of $3,396,000 arrears before he is heard on appeal and stayed the appeal until payment (with dismissal if not paid within 14 days), adjourned/remitted the Hadkinson application against the 2nd Respondent for first-instance determination of compliance, refused the Wife's application for security for costs for delay, and refused leave to appeal the conditional stay ruling.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory applications partly granted and partly dismissed: Hadkinson order against 1st Respondent granted; Hadkinson application against 2nd Respondent adjourned/remitted; security for costs dismissed; leave to appeal stay ruling refused.

Orders

  • 1st Respondent (Husband) not to be heard on appeal CACV80/2013 until he pays $3,396,000 being arrears of periodical payments ordered in the Part IIA Application
  • Until payment of $3,396,000 is made, all proceedings in CACV80/2013 are stayed