LSW v. LMYM

LSW v. LMYM

Leave to appeal was dismissed because section 14(3)(d) of the High Court Ordinance and the circumstances (applicant had time and opportunity to appeal the decree nisi and had unsuccessfully appealed) render the present application misconceived and an abuse of process; applicant's grounds were unarguable and previously rejected; the court will consider exercising its inherent jurisdiction to strike out the pending related appeal and to impose RPO/RAO against the applicant.

Citation
LSW v. LMYM
Parties
Petitioner: LSW; Respondent (applicant): LMYM
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 July 2008
Case Number
HCMP1041/2008
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to Court of Appeal (judgment)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; no order as to costs; provisional view to strike out related appeal (CACV 43/2008) and to grant RPO and RAO subject to submissions; stay of further proceedings ordered pending decision on submissions.
Legal Topics
Decree Nisi and Decree Absolute, Ancillary Relief, Leave to Appeal, Abuse of Process, Restrictive Proceedings Order (rpo), Restrictive Application Order (rao), Strike Out, Vexatious Litigant, Summary Judgment
Source Language
EN
Family Law Matrimonial Law Civil Procedure Judicial Review Tort Law Decree Nisi and Decree Absolute Ancillary Relief Leave to Appeal +6 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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LSW

Petitioner

LMYM

Respondent (applicant)

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to Court of Appeal (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal lies from a decree absolute when the party had opportunity to appeal the decree nisi under s14(3)(d) High Court Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's proposed appeal is an abuse of process and whether proceedings should be struck out
  3. 3 Whether the deputy district judge correctly made the decree nisi absolute in light of prior appeals and orders

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was dismissed because section 14(3)(d) of the High Court Ordinance and the circumstances (applicant had time and opportunity to appeal the decree nisi and had unsuccessfully appealed) render the present application misconceived and an abuse of process; applicant's grounds were unarguable and previously rejected; the court will consider exercising its inherent jurisdiction to strike out the pending related appeal and to impose RPO/RAO against the applicant.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed; no order as to costs; provisional view to strike out related appeal (CACV 43/2008) and to grant RPO and RAO subject to submissions; stay of further proceedings ordered pending decision on submissions.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.
  • Provisional view to strike out CACV 43/2008 and to grant a restrictive proceedings order (RPO) and restrictive application order (RAO) against the applicant; parties to be heard by written submissions within 14 days.