16 Nov 2021
Leave to appeal was refused because the respondent's proposed grounds relied on new evidence and reargument of findings already made, failed to identify an arguable basis for appeal and did not demonstrate a realistic prospect of success nor any other reason in the interests of justice to justify granting leave.
19 Oct 2016
Applicants failed to prove on the civil standard that the Deceased's estate (through the 1st Respondent as intended executrix) had the means to make full payment of the ordered monthly periodical payments; the Profit and Loss Statements produced were accepted as demonstrating insufficient means and thus there was no culpable contempt. On that basis and because there was no impediment to the course of justice and debarment would be disproportionate, the court dismissed the Hadkinson application and refused to exercise its discretion to debar the 1st Respondent.
7 Jun 1973
Given the 1st respondent's demonstrated substantial means, the petitioner's total financial dependence, the respondent's inadequate disclosure and the respondent's conduct causing the breakdown, the court applied s.7(1) and exercised its powers under ss.4,5 and 6 of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance 1972 to transfer the matrimonial home (131 Waterloo Road) to the petitioner and to secure periodical payments of HK$5,000 per month to the petitioner and HK$1,500 per month for each of the two younger children, with orders to take effect on decree absolute.