Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Condonation

Legal area

Court

1 Jun 1999

Kerry Foodstuffs Co. Ltd. v. Phulsawat Navy Co. Ltd. and Others

Citation

Kerry Foodstuffs Co. Ltd. v. Phulsawat Navy Co. Ltd. and Others
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV262/1998

The Court of Appeal will not upset a trial judge's discretionary refusal to strike out for want of prosecution where, despite inordinate delay, the defendant's conduct (including consenting to extensions and acquiescence) reasonably justified allowing the action to continue; the judge did not err in principle and the appeal is dismissed.
6 Jun 1973

WONG CHAN YING-HAN, JULIA v. WONG CHIK-WAI

Citation

WONG CHAN YING-HAN, JULIA v. WONG CHIK-WAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV24/1972

The appeal is allowed because the evidence established adultery by the husband and, on the facts accepted by the judge, the wife's limited post-discovery cohabitation and intercourse did not constitute condonation: she never intended to forgive and the husband never intended to abandon the adulterous relationship, so condonation was not established and the wife's petition for dissolution must succeed.
19 Sept 1972

WAI CHIU MING v. WAI CHAN LAI JAM (or JAN)

Citation

WAI CHIU MING v. WAI CHAN LAI JAM (or JAN)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA170/1971

The court found the petitioner not a credible witness and his evidence insufficient to prove cruelty; conversely the respondent was credible and established acts of cruelty (two assaults) and that earlier condoned acts were revived by the petitioner's desertion and wilful neglect, entitling the respondent to a decree and maintenance.
20 Apr 1972

YUE SHUN MEEN-KUN, MARIAN v. YUE (or YU) or (U) TUNG SANG, STEPHEN

Citation

YUE SHUN MEEN-KUN, MARIAN v. YUE (or YU) or (U) TUNG SANG, STEPHEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA77/1971

The affidavit filed was insufficient because it failed to set out the grounds and relevant circumstances (including the parties' means and matters relevant to connivance, condonation or collusion); accordingly the application must be adjourned for the filing of further evidence sufficient to enable the court to assess fairness and the absence of collusion.
10 Apr 1972

WONG CHAN YING HAN, JULIA v. WONG CHIK WAI

Citation

WONG CHAN YING HAN, JULIA v. WONG CHIK WAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA236/1971

Court preferred the petitioner's credibility, accepted that the respondent admitted adultery and that his letters showed an infatuation but concluded that the petitioner, by resuming relations without evidence of mutual intent to treat the period as a trial for reconciliation under s.51(2), condoned the adultery; accordingly the petition for divorce was dismissed and a decree of restitution of conjugal rights was granted for the respondent.
17 May 1969

LAM LO KWAI CHUN v. LAM CHIOU GONG

Citation

LAM LO KWAI CHUN v. LAM CHIOU GONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMC127/1967

Court found on the evidence that the Petitioner left the matrimonial home without reasonable cause to continue an association with Wong Shing, and that she condoned the Respondent's subsequent adulterous relationship with Lo Mui; accordingly the Petition for divorce was dismissed and a decree nisi was granted in favour of the Respondent on the ground of wilful desertion.
16 Apr 1969

DORA LEE v. LI VIEN CHIEN

Citation

DORA LEE v. LI VIEN CHIEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMC24/1967

The court found that the parties resumed cohabitation and sexual relations from 18 May 1967 to 2 July 1968, which amounted to condonation of the cruelty alleged; the evidence did not prove that the respondent's subsequent conduct revived the prior cruelty in law. On that basis the decree nisi should not be made absolute, and the decree nisi was rescinded and the petition dismissed.
18 Sept 1968

LAU PUI KWAI v. LEE SHUE

Citation

LAU PUI KWAI v. LEE SHUE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV20/1968

Even if some pre‑separation conduct could arguably amount to cruelty, the petitioner condoned that conduct by returning to cohabitation; the subsequent conduct after return was insufficient to revive the earlier offence and the evidence fell short of proving wilful neglect to maintain or injury to health, therefore the appeal to grant a divorce on grounds of cruelty must be dismissed.