8 Jan 2024
The husband failed to demonstrate any arguable legal or procedural error in the trial judge's handling of evidence or in the factual and credibility findings; his submissions merely re-argued facts already considered and did not show a reasonable prospect of success or other grounds for hearing an appeal, therefore leave to appeal is refused.
22 Sept 2020
An issue-based, time-divided exercise of discretion is required: although the defendant succeeded on the central legal point (construction of section 20 of the MCO) and thus deserves substantial costs, other grounds were pursued and evidence was filed unnecessarily; on balance the plaintiff must pay 50% of the defendant's costs of the striking out application before the Master and 75% of the defendant's costs of the appeal, to be taxed if not agreed, with appropriate certificates for counsel.
10 Jan 2018
On the evidence the court was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that an adoption ceremony required by Chinese custom had occurred and the contemporaneous and testimonial evidence as to the alleged 1949 marriage and continuing spousal relationship was inconsistent and insufficient; accordingly both appeals fail and earlier declarations (that LTM was the lawfully adopted daughter) stand.
29 May 2015
On the provisional record the tribunal accepted the Pakistan marriage registration and succession certificate as sufficient evidence that Madam Naz Naila was the lawful widow and had an interest in the estate; under the Non-Contentious Probate Rules the surviving spouse enjoyed higher priority than the son for appointment and Naila had shown greater preparedness to advance administration proceedings, therefore she was a fit and proper person to be appointed under O.15 r.6A RHC to represent the deceased's estate for these proceedings; Hong Kong law applies to succession of the Hong Kong landed…
9 May 2014
The Court refused the extension of time because the applicants' delay of about one month was substantial and not satisfactorily explained, and because their proposed appeal had no real prospect of success: the first applicant's marriage was void and therefore neither applicant had lawful entitlement to remain; the Director lawfully exercised discretion to cancel permission and revoke identity documents. Costs were awarded to respondents.
30 May 2013
The application to adduce fresh evidence was dismissed because the applicant failed the first Ladd v Marshall requirement: the documents could have been obtained with reasonable diligence before or during the protracted trial, so the court would not admit the fresh evidence.
26 Aug 2011
Plaintiff's proprietary claims (proprietary estoppel and part performance) failed for want of credible evidence of any binding promise, of expectation created or encouraged by the deceased, and of detrimental reliance; Plaintiff was not a wife within IPFDO s.2 but a dependant under s.3(1)(ix); applying s.5 factors the court awarded maintenance in lieu of transfer: monthly provision HK$40,000, converted to a lump sum of HK$7,358,400 less interim payment, with payment schedule and vacant possession orders, and costs split between parties.
31 May 1993
The application was dismissed because credible and uncontroverted evidence established that the second applicant had used a false name and likely obtained identity documents by false representation, the Registrar was therefore entitled to refuse to accept the notice to prevent a marriage that would be void under s27 and public policy barred granting the discretionary relief sought, which would also be futile.
30 Nov 1972
The court held that the ceremony combined with subsequent cohabitation gave rise to a presumption of a valid marriage which the Defendant failed to rebut; therefore the Plaintiff was the Defendant's wife for purposes of Cap.16. The Defendant was found to have deserted the Plaintiff from 6 October 1970. On that basis the court awarded legal custody of two children to the Plaintiff and ordered monthly maintenance payments of HKD 200 to the Plaintiff and HKD 300 for the two children, payable through the Court Shroff on the 30th of each month.