5 Sept 2019
TYT v. TLH
- Citation
- [2019] HKFC 231
- Court
- Family Court
- Case number
- FCJA3690/2017
Leave to appeal was refused because the 2nd Applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success: there was insufficient prima facie evidence of concealment or dissipations to justify extended discovery of bank statements; the Table A request failed to specify documentary items requiring an O.24 r.7 affidavit; the 12‑month Form E period is not a fixed statutory minimum and sufficiency is fact dependent; and the obligation to seek joinder for beneficial ownership rested on the applicant, not the respondent.