CWG v. MH AND OTHERS

CWG v. MH AND OTHERS

R2 was not permitted to be heard on the stay application because she lacked a sufficient present legal interest affecting the stay and it would be premature to hear her; alternatively R2 is in contempt for failing to comply with the Discovery Order in respect of items 6,8,9 and 12 of Schedule 1 and, applying Hadkinson principles and the Mubarak questions, the court exercised its discretion to prevent R2 from being heard on the Stay Application until she has complied in full with paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Discovery Order. Costs were awarded to the wife against R2 in the sum of HK$200,000 (costs order nisi).

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
2 August 2013
Case Number
HCMP643/2012
Procedural Posture
Matrimonial Financial Relief / Enforcement (stay of Execution Pending Appeal) / Interlocutory Application for Stay of Execution and Committal/containment Hearing (hadkinson Application)
Outcome
Application by R2 to be heard on the stay refused; Hadkinson order imposed preventing R2 from being heard on the stay application until full compliance with the Discovery Order; costs awarded to the wife against R2.
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Hadkinson Order, Contempt of Court, Disclosure Order Compliance, Joinder/intervention, Enforcement of Foreign Assets, Costs
Source Language
EN
Family Law Civil Procedure Enforcement Contempt Disclosure/discovery Stay of Execution Hadkinson Order Contempt of Court +4 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 2
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

Matrimonial Financial Relief / Enforcement (stay of Execution Pending Appeal) / Interlocutory Application for Stay of Execution and Committal/containment Hearing (hadkinson Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2nd respondent (R2) has a legal interest such that she should be heard on the husband’s stay application
  2. 2 Whether R2 is in contempt of the Discovery Order dated 10 August 2012
  3. 3 Whether a Hadkinson order should be imposed preventing R2 from being heard until compliance

Ratio Decidendi

R2 was not permitted to be heard on the stay application because she lacked a sufficient present legal interest affecting the stay and it would be premature to hear her; alternatively R2 is in contempt for failing to comply with the Discovery Order in respect of items 6,8,9 and 12 of Schedule 1 and, applying Hadkinson principles and the Mubarak questions, the court exercised its discretion to prevent R2 from being heard on the Stay Application until she has complied in full with paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Discovery Order. Costs were awarded to the wife against R2 in the sum of HK$200,000 (costs order nisi).

Court Disposition

Application by R2 to be heard on the stay refused; Hadkinson order imposed preventing R2 from being heard on the stay application until full compliance with the Discovery Order; costs awarded to the wife against R2.

Orders

  • R2 shall not be heard on the husband’s Stay Application until she has complied in full with paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Discovery Order dated 10 August 2012 in relation to items 6, 8, 9 and 12 of Schedule 1.
  • Costs assessed summarily in favour of the wife against R2 in the sum of HK$200,000; costs order nisi to be made final after 14 days; if no objection the sum of HK$200,000 shall be paid by R2 to the wife within 7 days thereafter.