Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Affidavit of means

Legal area

Court

10 Oct 2001

THE NATIONAL COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. v. HON WAI SZE

Citation

THE NATIONAL COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. v. HON WAI SZE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5708/2000

The defendant failed to file a proper, full affidavit of means and did not comply with the court's unless order; therefore the master was entitled to refuse to vary the $16 million condition and the defendant's appeal against the order of 13 August 2001 must fail; the appeal against the 9 April 2001 order was out of time and could not be pursued.
15 Mar 1999

CHAN KAM CHEONG v. ZHANG SABINA SOI FAN

Citation

CHAN KAM CHEONG v. ZHANG SABINA SOI FAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA12863/1998

The defendant failed to demonstrate special circumstances or provide an affidavit of means; prior evidence depicted her as wealthy and no credible inability to pay was shown; the bankruptcy point was irrelevant and a digression; accordingly the application for a stay of execution is dismissed with costs.
3 Mar 1994

LO SHIU CHUN v. LAW YING CHEE FOGG

Citation

LO SHIU CHUN v. LAW YING CHEE FOGG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV130/1993

Where, on the facts, the respondent had affirmatively admitted substantial net worth and counsel assured the court of sufficient liquidity to meet any reasonable lump‑sum award, further particulars of property and income under r.73(2) were unnecessary; the judge's failure to exercise the discretion was corrected by allowing the appeal and setting aside the order for full particulars.
3 Feb 1994

WANG SIAU (OR HSIAO) YU v. WU CHO MEI (or MAY) t/a MUI FAR CHUNG RESTAURANT AND ANOTHER

Citation

WANG SIAU (OR HSIAO) YU v. WU CHO MEI (or MAY) t/a MUI FAR CHUNG RESTAURANT AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV121/1993

Where an unchallenged affidavit of means establishes that a defendant cannot meet a payment-into-court condition, the court must vary the condition rather than leave it at a level that would preclude a genuine right to defend; accordingly the court substituted HK$200,000 for HK$750,000 and allowed the appeal to that extent, relying on M V Yorke Motors.
11 Jan 1994

CHUNG KAM LING v. CHUNG WU NI SHANG

Citation

CHUNG KAM LING v. CHUNG WU NI SHANG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV75/1993

The Court held the judge had jurisdiction despite a drafting error because the mistake was obvious and not misleading; the judge did not perversely exercise his discretion in ordering an affidavit of means before other applications were determined; the appeal was rendered academic by the subsequent filing of the affirmation of means but is dismissed on its merits; costs follow the event.
11 Jun 1993

TAO CHEN PI O v. TAI HSIUO MING

Citation

TAO CHEN PI O v. TAI HSIUO MING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV38/1993

The husband's affirmation fell far short of the full particulars required by rule 73(2); the Court of Appeal ordered the husband to provide specified detailed particulars of income, assets and documents within 28 days, refused the transfer to the High Court, and made an order nisi as to costs to be costs in the ancillary proceedings.
24 Jul 1992

PLERN BARING, THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE COUNTESS OF CROMER v. EVELYN ROWLAND ESMOND BARING THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE EARL OF CROMER

Citation

PLERN BARING, THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE COUNTESS OF CROMER v. EVELYN ROWLAND ESMOND BARING THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE EARL OF CROMER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV124/1992

The Court of Appeal held that the petitioner had a personal enforceable right to use the Hong Kong matrimonial home until a formal legal separation agreement was made; Syed v Syed did not bar relief on these facts; the District Court judge erred in refusing appropriate relief and in ordering the respondent to pay excessive hotel charges without adequate evidence of means; consequently the petitioner was entitled to an order permitting her to enter, remain and reside at the Queen's Garden flat and the hotel‑payment order was set aside (with limited agreed payments ordered).
4 May 1981

H v. H

Citation

H v. H
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV195/1980

Fuad J. acted within his judicial discretion in ordering a further affidavit under Rule 73(2); Rule 73(2) and section 7(1) require sufficient particulars of assets and income even for very wealthy parties so that the Court can perform its statutory duty; wealth does not excuse compliance and the appeal is dismissed.
9 Dec 1980

ANN VIRGINIA HOTUNG v. JOSEPH EDWARD HOTUNG

Citation

ANN VIRGINIA HOTUNG v. JOSEPH EDWARD HOTUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMC53/1980

The affidavit filed on 7 October did not provide the full particulars of property and income required by Rule 73(2); the court requires a realistic and reliable account of each party's assets and income to perform its statutory duty under s.7 and therefore ordered the respondent to file a further affidavit complying with Rule 73(2).