11 Dec 2024
The judge's refusal to transfer was a discretionary case management decision within her generous ambit of discretion; the Husband failed both limbs of section 14AA(4) as there was no reasonable prospect of success and no sufficient interest of justice to grant leave, given the Family Court's competence, active case management, and prematurity of transfer.
15 Jan 2024
Where a civil claim concerns an asset arguably matrimonial in nature and there are concurrent Family Court proceedings, it is generally appropriate to have the Family Court determine the financial/property disputes provided a stay will not cause injustice; here both matters were at an early stage, no sufficient evidence of prejudice or abuse, and therefore the Master's dismissal of the stay summons was set aside and leave to apply for a stay granted.
6 Oct 2023
The court held that petitioner had partial success because Assets 2 and 3 were found to be subject to resulting trust/nominee findings and therefore to be treated as matrimonial assets for ancillary relief; costs follow the event remains the starting point but an issue-based reduction was warranted because petitioner's failed Matrimonial Pot arguments and defective common intention constructive trust pleadings caused a significant and avoidable increase in length and costs; consequently the Costs Order Nisi was varied so respondents pay 30% of petitioner's costs on a party and party basis wit…
23 Mar 2021
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal: the plaintiff’s District Court claim in detinue/conversion was not an abuse of process because there was no earlier dispute or adjudication of ownership and the defendant had not indicated an intention to litigate in the Family Court before the claim; while the Family Court has jurisdiction over the Gifts, the plaintiff was not obliged to seek ancillary relief; the District Court action was stayed as a case management measure pending any ancillary relief application by the defendant, and costs of the appeal were awarded to the plaintiff.
4 Nov 2020
The husband failed to discharge the burden under s.19 to show lack of bona fide prosecution or other good cause to vacate the lis; the wife was entitled to preserve the matrimonial home and its encumbrances pending final ancillary relief; the husband’s late 68th affidavit raised new grounds filed without leave and failed Ladd v Marshall criteria and was expunged; on the financial evidence the husband had assets and income available and did not justify vacatur, therefore the summons to vacate the AR Notice was dismissed and costs were ordered against the husband.
28 Sept 2018
The court held the defendant's strike-out summons must be dismissed because the plaintiff's civil claim for proprietary relief is not plainly an abuse of process: the claim is a distinct property right remedy appropriately pursued in civil proceedings rather than being confined to ancillary relief; the defendant was not shown to be vexed or unfairly prejudiced and public/private interests do not justify striking out.
29 Jan 2018
Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal lacked reasonable prospects and largely re-ran rejected trial arguments; the judge's factual and credibility findings on beneficial ownership and the assets of the five family companies were upheld; the indemnity costs ruling was sustained in principle though final indemnity award was not ordered here; stay of execution was refused because applicants failed to demonstrate strong grounds or that appeal would be rendered nugatory.
3 Aug 2016
The Court of Appeal dismissed the respondent’s appeal: the trial judge did not make a computing error, was entitled to treat the specified China properties as loss-making and to impute undisclosed assets of HK$5,000,000 given the evidence of expenditure and non-disclosure, and was entitled to take into account the respondent’s real prospect of inheritance; consequently fairness supported each party retaining their own assets with joint properties sold and proceeds divided equally under a clean break.
10 Jan 2014
Key holdings: (1) No sustainable apparent bias; judge did not have to recuse for the ancillary relief trial. (2) Findings of forgery and perjury based on SP1 were set aside because documents were not properly admissible/ proved and because compromise (23 Feb 2011) operated as res judicata/estoppel to preclude re-litigation of forgery in ancillary relief; those specific findings cannot stand. (3) Referral of the judgment to the DPP is not appealable and was within judicial practice; language used was not improper. (4) Fathers contractual rights under the Framework Agreement and Special Articl…
28 Jul 2006
The Court allowed the appeal and set aside paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Deputy District Judge's order because there was no evidence that the extended discovery ordered was relevant or necessary for fair disposal of the matrimonial financial issues, the orders went beyond normal matrimonial disclosure periods, were disproportionate and appeared to be a fishing expedition, and the judge had not been properly addressed or provided with supporting evidence to justify such broad disclosure.