WGL v. ASB

WGL v. ASB

The court applied the Currey principles and held that the Mother, as the applicant for litigation funding, failed to make adequate disclosure of her financial resources (notably the whereabouts of about HKD13.7m and supporting documentation), made an excessive budgetary claim, and therefore the exercise of discretion to refuse funding and to refuse leave to appeal was not plainly wrong; leave to appeal was denied and costs were ordered against the Mother.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 519
Parties
Applicant (mother): WGL; Respondent (father): ASB; Minor: ILB
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 March 2018
Case Number
HCMP489/2013
Procedural Posture
Guardianship of Minors (variation of Maintenance) / Application for Leave to Appeal From Decision Dated 30 November 2017
Outcome
Leave to appeal dismissed; Mother ordered to pay costs of the application
Legal Topics
Litigation Funding, Leave to Appeal, Currey Principles, Variation of Maintenance, Disclosure of Financial Resources
Source Language
EN
Family Law Civil Procedure Litigation Funding Appeal Leave to Appeal Currey Principles Variation of Maintenance Disclosure of Financial Resources

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WGL

Applicant (mother)

ASB

Respondent (father)

ILB

Minor

Procedural Posture

Guardianship of Minors (variation of Maintenance) / Application for Leave to Appeal From Decision Dated 30 November 2017

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Mother was acting in a representative capacity so her personal means should not be considered
  2. 2 Application of the Currey principles to litigation funding applications
  3. 3 Adequacy of disclosure regarding whereabouts of HKD13.7m and the Mother’s financial documentation

Ratio Decidendi

The court applied the Currey principles and held that the Mother, as the applicant for litigation funding, failed to make adequate disclosure of her financial resources (notably the whereabouts of about HKD13.7m and supporting documentation), made an excessive budgetary claim, and therefore the exercise of discretion to refuse funding and to refuse leave to appeal was not plainly wrong; leave to appeal was denied and costs were ordered against the Mother.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal dismissed; Mother ordered to pay costs of the application

Orders

  • Mother’s summons for leave to appeal dismissed
  • Mother ordered to pay the costs of this application