13 Feb 2019
The applicant failed to show any arguable or reasonably likely error in the trial judge's factual or legal determinations; the judge had considered and explained the contested points; contributions were found to be approximately equal; consequently there was no reasonable prospect of success and no other reason to grant leave, so the application for leave to appeal was refused.
10 Oct 2007
Issuing the Form A/Form 8 notice before the petitioner's remarriage constituted initiation of the ancillary relief application so s.9 MPPO did not bar the court's jurisdiction; on the evidence the petitioner demonstrated a seriously arguable case for ancillary relief and the court therefore exercised its discretion to grant leave to apply.
29 Jun 2006
On a broad brush assessment of needs and available resources, the court found reasonable current expenditure at around HK$70,000 per month (including HK$20,000 for the child) and ordered interim maintenance of HK$20,000 per month from the husband's income and HK$50,000 per month to be met from the parties' joint Credit Suisse account; earning capacity was not to be assumed at this interim stage and disputed company payments could not be found on the evidence and may be addressed at final hearing by set-off.
18 Jan 2006
Insufficient medical evidence to preclude work; wife has earning capacity. Order sale of matrimonial property; net sale proceeds to be divided 25% to petitioner, 35% to respondent, 40% held in trust for the children. Nominal spousal periodical payment only; child maintenance fixed at HK$5,000 per child per month. Lump sum HK$21,840 ordered to repay mother's AXA premium. Interim maintenance to continue until 1 March 2006. Costs: each party to bear own costs (order nisi).
29 Apr 1998
Leave to appeal out of time is refused because the applicant failed to give a satisfactory explanation for the delay and the proposed grounds either were irrelevant or constituted matters to be dealt with by the Family Judge; additionally there was no evidence the monetary threshold for an appeal as of right was met.
27 Feb 1981
The Registrar adopted the correct approach in principle but the appeal court varied the orders to give the wife greater capital to enable her to acquire housing: increase the wife's lump sum from $100,000 to $200,000, delete the Registrar's paragraph (v), retain the capitalised child maintenance awards, and reallocate the husband's inherited estate interest equally between husband and wife with the daughter's share deleted; appeal allowed in part and costs to the appellant.