CWG v. MH AND OTHERS

CWG v. MH AND OTHERS

The stay was dismissed because the 2nd respondent remained in contempt and had not purged that contempt, she had consented to the consent order and failed to comply, and she failed to demonstrate any new matter arising since the consent order that would affect its validity; the lis pendens and the 1st respondent's appeal were known before the consent order and a bankruptcy petition does not alone justify a stay.

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
24 June 2016
Case Number
HCMP643/2012
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 29 AB of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance (cap 192) / Stay Summons Hearing (post‑trial Enforcement; Bankruptcy Petition Pending)
Outcome
Stay summons dismissed
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Hadkinson Orders (barring Contemnor From Being Heard), Consent Order Enforcement, Lis Pendens, Inherent Jurisdiction to Stay Execution
Source Language
EN
Matrimonial Law Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Enforcement of Judgments Bankruptcy Procedure Costs Stay of Execution Hadkinson Orders (barring Contemnor From Being Heard) +3 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 4
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

Application Under Section 29 AB of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance (cap 192) / Stay Summons Hearing (post‑trial Enforcement; Bankruptcy Petition Pending)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay of execution of the consent order should be granted under Order 45 rule 11 or the court's inherent jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd respondent should be heard given prior Hadkinson orders and continuing contempt
  3. 3 Whether any matters have arisen since the consent order which affect its validity

Ratio Decidendi

The stay was dismissed because the 2nd respondent remained in contempt and had not purged that contempt, she had consented to the consent order and failed to comply, and she failed to demonstrate any new matter arising since the consent order that would affect its validity; the lis pendens and the 1st respondent's appeal were known before the consent order and a bankruptcy petition does not alone justify a stay.

Court Disposition

Stay summons dismissed

Orders

  • Stay Summons dismissed
  • 2nd respondent to lodge written submissions on costs within 7 days