Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Consent order compliance

Legal area

Court

18 Feb 2022

YSG (YX) v. LYAG

Citation

[2022] HKFC 44
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC15288/2015

Application to adduce newly discovered documents was refused as excessively late, not properly made, inconsistent with the Consent Order and with closed written evidence, and the explanation for delay was unsatisfactory; exception made to admit a single letter to the Singapore Ministry of Defence; leave granted to produce amended charts and for the respondent to file an affirmation addressing the admitted letter before giving evidence.
18 Jan 2019

何對温

Citation

[2019] HKFC 20
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC14391/2013

The summons for enforcement was dismissed because the applicant failed to produce sufficient and credible evidence that he had complied with the conditions of the consent order (removal/placement of pets and other promises). Compliance was within the applicant's control and he did not adduce expected corroboration; therefore enforcement and compensation were not granted.
16 Jan 2019

CHAN KOON HAU formerly known as CHAN MONG CHOW v. LAM KONG MAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 230
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA327/2017

The court refused the plaintiff's unless order because there was evidence the originals and forensic report were not necessarily within defendants' control and may be in police possession, making compliance potentially impossible; imposing a draconian sanction such as striking out in those circumstances would be unjustified and the correct remedy is extension/variation of the consent order or proceeding to trial.
15 Jan 2016

THOUSAND JADE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION v. SU SU AND OTHERS

Citation

THOUSAND JADE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION v. SU SU AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1710/2014

Registrar exercised discretion and refused the plaintiff's request to extend time to apply for default judgment until trial because the plaintiff had agreed to a consent order requiring earlier application and non-performance risked prejudice to the 1st defendant's ability to vary the Mareva order; however, by consent the parties agreed an interim extension to 19 February 2016. Costs were awarded to the 1st defendant and counsel's certificate was granted.
17 Jan 2007

TO KAN CHI AND OTHERS v. MILLER PEART (a firm)

Citation

TO KAN CHI AND OTHERS v. MILLER PEART (a firm)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2111/2005

Managers failed to comply with the Consent Order deadline so could not rely on the concession; notwithstanding lapse of 12 months, the Court found sufficient special circumstances (complex factual history, bona fide dispute about basis and amount and real prospect of substantial reduction on taxation) to order taxation under LPO s67(2); the Court has power under s67(2) to impose terms including an interim payment and accordingly ordered taxation on a solicitor and own client basis with an interim payment of HKD 10,000,000 and other conditions.

Hong Kong Case Law

YSG (YX) v. LYAG

何 對 温

CHAN KOON HAU formerly known as CHAN MONG CHOW v. LAM KONG MAN AND OTHERS

THOUSAND JADE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION v. SU SU AND OTHERS

TO KAN CHI AND OTHERS v. MILLER PEART (a firm)

何對温