Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Financial dispute resolution (fdr)

Legal area

Court

5 May 2023

LAU WAI KWONG v. LAU CHEUNG KAM LING MARGARET née CHEUNG, KAM LING MARGARET

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1097
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2085/2017

The court dismissed the rectification claim because there was no objective common continuing intention to divide the Matrimonial Home 50:50 at the time of execution (the earlier in‑principle agreement had been overtaken by subsequent negotiations and alternative proposals) and unilateral mistake failed because there was insufficient evidence that the defendant or her lawyers knew of the claimant's mistake at execution; the counterclaim failed because the obligations in K(i) and K(ii) were interdependent and effectively put on hold pending resolution of the construction dispute, and because an…
3 Dec 2021

NPYJ v. SMRC

Citation

[2021] HKFC 241
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC9098/2018

The court partially allowed H's summons: it re-amended and reinstated specific questions where proportionate and relevant, disallowed or narrowed requests that were too wide or fishing, required answers to be verified by statement of truth, reinstated FDR, and maintained the existing trial timetable because the court found the orders of 8 October 2021 achievable with reasonable diligence.
7 Aug 2020

LYYC v. CHL and CSMS, the Executrices of the Estate of CGSK also known as CSKG, deceased

Citation

[2020] HKFC 158
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMP223/2017

The court will determine the Applicant's interim maintenance application first by paper disposal because the interim financial support can and should be resolved promptly and efficiently; after that determination the parties will reconsider whether an FDR is appropriate and, if not resolved, the matter will be transferred to the High Court. Costs follow the event and an order nisi for costs in favour of the Applicant is appropriate.
25 Oct 2019

C, MT v. M, P

Citation

[2019] HKFC 276
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC5451/2018

On a broad‑brush assessment of needs and ability to pay, the court rejected the petitioner's full claimed budget as inflated, accepted several of the husband's direct undertakings and awards, and ordered the husband to pay HK$60,000 per month in total (HK$31,750 to the wife and HK$28,250 for the child) and litigation funding of HK$50,000 per month to the petitioner's solicitors for four months, with no backdating and an order nisi as to costs.
28 Jun 2019

CMJF nee T v. MGF

Citation

[2019] HKFC 171
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC7409/2013

The court held the January 2018 six‑day hearing did not amount to an "Extended FDR" because PD 15.11 pre‑requisites (FDR bundle, notice and procedure) were not met, the judge was not apprised of privileged FDR materials nor did the judge participate in negotiations in a manner that could compromise fairness, and no established grounds for recusal (apparent bias or lack of impartiality) were shown; accordingly the Respondent's summons for recusal was dismissed and the matters proceeded to directions before the same court.
25 Oct 2018

LTF v. SCW

Citation

[2018] HKFC 180
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC9973/2016

W satisfied the Currey criteria: she lacks realistic means to fund litigation without depleting modest personal savings, cannot reasonably offer security or obtain loans, cannot access legal aid given joint asset profile, and it would be unfair for her to fund litigation when H had disposed of substantial property proceeds that she has not received; accordingly W was permitted to withdraw HK$500,000 from the joint BOC account for legal costs pending suit up to FDR; H’s cross‑application was dismissed; costs awarded to W and Certificate for Counsel granted.
23 Jun 2015

柯 v. 龔

Citation

柯 v. 龔
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC12807/2013

Summons to file the affidavit was dismissed because the sworn affidavit was put on the court file without leave, was procedurally and substantively inappropriate (did not address Section 7 factors), failed to comply with FDR and case management requirements, and the solicitor offered no satisfactory explanation for filing; costs ordered and separate hearing directed on wasted costs application.
13 Jun 2012

LPK v. SH AND ANOTHER

Citation

LPK v. SH AND ANOTHER
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC14402/2011

The judge found that no FDR occurred on 11 October 2011 and that any putative FDR on 14 October 2011 was not concluded; accordingly there was no basis for recusal on procedural fairness grounds and the 1st Respondent's summons for recusal was dismissed with costs ordered against him.
10 Oct 2008

H v. W

Citation

H v. W
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC11958/2006

The judge exercised discretion to apportion costs against the wife because, although neither party wholly won, the wife's conduct (failing to call her father, vacating a second FDR, late and unexplained litigation tactics) materially increased costs and her final trial-day offer was too late and did not beat the court's order; the husband had been justified in proceeding given he had beaten prior offers.
2 Jul 2008

HCTT v. TYYC

Citation

HCTT v. TYYC
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV380/2007

The learned Deputy District Judge misdirected herself by giving no or insufficient weight to a recent consent order made without any material change in circumstances; absent good and substantial cause or a material change, the consent order must generally be respected; the variation was set aside and the original consent order restored.