HTL v. K, RE

HTL v. K, RE

Leave to appeal was refused because the Court, applying s63A(2) District Court Ordinance, concluded the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success given the trial judge's well-supported factual findings on the husband's earning capacity, non-disclosure, litigation misconduct and the reasonableness of the ancillary...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
HTL v. K, RE
Parties
Petitioner: K, RE; Respondent: Respondent (husband)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 May 2016
Case Number
HCMP270/2016
Procedural Posture
Ancillary Relief (family Law) / Application for Leave to Appeal to Court of Appeal Following FCMC Ancillary Relief Judgment
Outcome
leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Maintenance, Pension Sharing, Leave to Appeal, Non Disclosure, Costs, Child Maintenance
Source Language
en
Family Law Civil Procedure Appeal Ancillary Relief Maintenance Pension Sharing Leave to Appeal Non Disclosure +2 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K, RE

Petitioner

Respondent (husband)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Ancillary Relief (family Law) / Application for Leave to Appeal to Court of Appeal Following FCMC Ancillary Relief Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted under s63A(2) District Court Ordinance Cap 336
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in findings on earning capacity, health, financial disclosure and litigation misconduct
  3. 3 Whether the division of pension and ancillary relief orders were disproportionate or plainly wrong

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the Court, applying s63A(2) District Court Ordinance, concluded the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success given the trial judge's well-supported factual findings on the husband's earning capacity, non-disclosure, litigation misconduct and the reasonableness of the ancillary relief award (including pension share); consequently the application was frivolous and vexatious and no oral reconsideration would be allowed under Order 59 Rule 2A(8).

Court Disposition

leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is refused
  • No party may request this determination to be reconsidered at an oral hearing inter partes pursuant to Order 59 Rule 2A(8)