Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Hong Kong decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Family Court varied a 2011 child maintenance order upward, held it had jurisdiction, backdated the variation to 20 December 2023, and refused most lump sum claims.
The court dismissed cross-applications to vary child maintenance, fixed monthly maintenance at HK$80,000, discharged several consent-order undertakings, and ordered limited direct payments.
The District Court dismissed a father’s application for leave to appeal in long-running guardianship and maintenance proceedings, and awarded costs to the mother.
The District Court varied child maintenance and carer’s allowance, awarded arrears and reimbursement, and refused the father’s requests to cut payments or remit arrears.
Court of Appeal upheld a contempt finding for breach of a family finance undertaking to pay school fees, rejecting arguments on judgment summons, variation, and sentence.
The court refused an out-of-time leave to appeal application in a maintenance dispute, finding an 11-month delay unjustified and no arguable prospect of success.
The court refused to reduce maintenance before retirement, but prospectively lowered it to HK$10,000 a month once the payer retires or stops work.
Appeal against dismissal of the husband’s summonses in matrimonial proceedings allowed; the dismissal was set aside and the summonses restored.
The Family Court varied child maintenance, found the mother was working, drew adverse inferences against the father for non-disclosure, and ended the carer allowance.
The Court refused leave to appeal because the trial judge’s variation of the maintenance order was a discretionary decision supported by evidence and by proper consideration of both parties’ finances; the appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or any other compelling reason to hear the appeal, and no manifest error of fact or law was shown that would justify appellate intervention.
Source excerpt
Explore more
