Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Jurisdiction of family court

Legal area

Court

28 Aug 2019

WYM v. LYW AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKFC 221
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC14114/2015

The Intervener failed to demonstrate any legitimate reason, change of circumstances or sufficient cause to set aside a consent Joinder Order or to justify a stay; the Joinder Directions, obtained by consent and complying with the TL v. ML procedure, must stand; the Family Court is an appropriate forum to determine beneficial interests and manage any consequent order for sale under MPPO with proceeds dealt with by the Family Court; costs follow the event.
28 Dec 2018

GM-SA also known as DG,M S v. DDPJ

Citation

[2018] HKCA 1009
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP171/2018

The Family Court has at least jurisdiction to hear a summons insofar as the relief sought can be brought within the confines of enforcement/implementation of undertakings and related stay applications; accordingly the Court of Appeal adjourned the husband's application for leave to appeal sine die so the Family Court may first determine the substantive summons to avoid further delay and possible unnecessary appeals.
29 Nov 2018

CHAN MAN KI v. YAU CHUN FOR

Citation

[2018] HKDC 1481
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1564/2018

The judge refused leave to appeal because the defendant's proposed grounds lacked a reasonable prospect of success; on analysis the plaintiff's claim for return of gifts was not an abuse of process under Henderson v Henderson given distinctions between property claims and ancillary relief and absence of parallel proceedings or compelling public interest reasons to confine the plaintiff to the Family Court; accordingly the application for leave was dismissed and the costs order nisi was made absolute.
27 Oct 2017

XY v. DIRECTOR OF LEGAL AID

Citation

XY v. DIRECTOR OF LEGAL AID
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAA675/2017

The court held the Family Court lacked jurisdiction to decide the applicability of the DLA first charge and the proper route was appeal under the Ordinance; sums set aside in trust for children in domestic proceedings are recoveries 'for' the aided person within s18A and the proposed payments from the solicitor's trust account were not genuine periodical or secured periodical payments within s18A(5)(b), therefore the Director's first charge applies to the HK$4.25 million and the DLA's refusal to extend the legal aid certificate was lawful.
15 Apr 2016

LAU HANG PING v. CHOW YUN NIN

Citation

LAU HANG PING v. CHOW YUN NIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1067/2013

The High Court adjourned the action sine die because the contested questions about the origin of the purchase funds and the enforceability of the 2011 agreement are ancillary relief issues more appropriately resolved in the Family Court where three rounds of Form Es and ancillary relief claims are pending; the Family Court retains jurisdiction despite post-decree delay.
22 Jan 2014

TSC v. LYK

Citation

TSC v. LYK
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC2359/2013

Leave to appeal refused because the proposed grounds lacked a reasonable prospect of success; the wife had effectively conceded the jurisdictional point under s121 so it could not be relied upon in exercising discretion under Order 24 r13; the judge did not err in law or principle in exercising discretion or in assessing necessity item by item; the existing costs order nisi was proper under the broader interlocutory costs discretion of Order 62 r3(2A) and relevant conduct factors and is therefore made absolute.
29 Jan 2013

TS v. AJ

Citation

TS v. AJ
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC7928/2011

Given the unresolved jurisdictional question on the Family Court's power to grant leave to appeal out of time against a decree absolute and the seriousness of the fraud allegation which could undermine the foundation of the proceedings, the proper exercise of judicial discretion was to adjourn the re-amended summons sine die with liberty to restore rather than dismiss; costs: no order as to costs for the hearing but legal aid taxation to the Petitioner only.
7 Dec 2010

DOREEN DO YE TONG v. WESLEY WAI HEI WAN AND OTHERS

Citation

DOREEN DO YE TONG v. WESLEY WAI HEI WAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV124/2010

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the District Court/Family Court order and held that the Family Court does have jurisdiction to determine whether the property held in the name of Fortune Wealth was an asset of the husband and/or the wife at the time of the consent order for the purpose of clarifying the ambit of that consent order; the matter was remitted to the trial judge (Deputy District Judge Chan) to determine that issue on the evidence already heard.
31 May 2010

DOREEN DO YE TONG v. WESLEY WAI HEI WAN AND OTHERS

Citation

DOREEN DO YE TONG v. WESLEY WAI HEI WAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP783/2010

Leave to appeal was granted because the circumstances of the expedited hearing and the jurisdictional question rendered appellate scrutiny appropriate; the court declined to decide further substantive issues at this stage and reserved costs of the leave application.