Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Maintenance enforcement

  • 9 Sept 2024

    TKLK v. WKJ

    Citation
    [2024] HKFC 164
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP38/2007

    The court held that the applicant failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent had the means to satisfy the 2020 maintenance judgment or had disposed of assets to avoid it, relying only on prior adverse inferences was insufficient; however the court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent intentionally breached the 24 August 2021 order by refusing to provide his residential address and therefore was guilty of contempt in respect of that order.

  • 12 Jul 2022

    C v. S

    Citation
    [2022] HKCA 1033
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV84/2021

    Leave to appeal was refused because the Father's grounds did not raise any question of great general or public importance as required by s22(1)(b) Cap. 484; the Court found on the facts that the conditions for a Hadkinson order were met (deliberate and continuing non-payment affecting the child's wellbeing and impeding effective enforcement), alternative remedies were ineffective, and the order imposed was proportionate and necessary.

  • 28 Jul 2021

    BL v. SJY

    Citation
    [2021] HKFC 148
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC7831/2008

    Judge accepted mother’s plan as genuine and realistic, gave substantial weight to child’s clear and reasoned wishes, the mother’s role as primary carer, the educational advantages and practicability of relocating to the US, and the significant financial and welfare risks of requiring mother and child to remain in Hong Kong; father’s opposition was not sufficient to outweigh the child’s best interests, hence leave to remove was granted.

  • 20 Nov 2019

    李 對 張

    Citation
    [2019] HKFC 297
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC4305/2013

    Respondent was found to have wilfully concealed a mainland asset and deliberately failed to pay court-ordered maintenance despite having capacity to pay; no mitigating factors or effective purge acts existed; therefore imprisonment was appropriate: two weeks for failure to disclose and ten weeks for persistent non-payment, ordered to be executed consecutively (total 12 weeks); interest on arrears and assessed costs awarded; committal orders to be rendered ineffective if all arrears, interest and costs are paid.

  • 28 May 2018

    邱 對 李

    Citation
    [2018] HKFC 80
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC18560/2012

    Applicant proved beyond reasonable doubt that respondent breached clearly framed court orders requiring filing of Form E and provision of questionnaire answers and supporting documents; respondent gave no credible explanation or evidence of inability to comply and made no attempt to purge the contempt; in all circumstances immediate committal to custody for 8 weeks was a proportionate sentence to punish, deter and enforce compliance, and costs were ordered against respondent.

  • 4 Dec 2015

    YPC also known as CL v. SSHL

    Citation
    YPC also known as CL v. SSHL
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP103/2012

    The SA Summons was dismissed: the Registrar lawfully has statutory authority under the MOREO and MORER to enforce a reciprocated foreign maintenance order in his office and title without being joined as a party; the Judgment Summons issued complied with applicable family and district court rules (Rule 87 MCR and O.90A RDC) and was not irregular; issues of human rights compatibility and procedural reform should be addressed by legislation rather than by invalidating the existing judgment summons remedy, and the judgment summons process remains available where properly taken and used as a last…

  • 30 Sept 2014

    TYCZ v. SKY

    Citation
    TYCZ v. SKY
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC6549/2002

    The application to amend the perfected consent order under the slip rule was dismissed because the omission of a certificate for counsel was not an accidental error expressing the court's manifest intention nor was there evidence of an implied term between the parties to include such a certificate; reserved costs not expressly included in the consent order were lost and could not be revived by the slip rule.

  • 18 Jan 2002

    TKSF v. TKSF

    Citation
    TKSF v. TKSF
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV2760/2001

    Where a judgment creditor is properly represented by counsel or solicitor and there is no statutory requirement for personal attendance, a judgment summons should not be dismissed for absence of the creditor; on non-attendance of the judgment debtor the court ought to adjourn or consider committal under Rule 87(5)(b),(c); accordingly the dismissals were erroneous, must be set aside, and the summonses restored with costs to the petitioners.

  • 10 Jun 1997

    M v. M

    Citation
    M v. M
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC1425/1988

    Where a person is in breach of a court order and another entitled to its benefit seeks to enforce the order, the data protection prohibition in Principle 3 is disapplied by s.58(2) of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance because disclosure to enable enforcement will prevent or remedy seriously improper conduct (contempt); therefore the Director of Housing may supply the husband's address upon appropriate request.