8 Apr 2022
高 對 鄭
- Citation
- [2022] HKFC 78
- Court
- Family Court
- Case number
- FCMC16371/2016
申請人未能提供可信且充分的證據證明在同意命令作出後發生了不可預見及實質的經濟惡化；稅單及銀行結單顯示過往年度收入並非持續低水平，且缺乏現任妻子或僱傭合約等關鍵證據支持其聲稱，法院因此不行使酌情權更改同意命令；故撤銷表格8申請並維持2017年5月31日同意命令，並判令申請人支付女方訟費。
Hong Kong Case Law
Retrospective relief
30 Apr 2021
WONG MICHELLE YATYEE v. GOLDBOND GROUP HOLDINGS LTD
- Citation
- [2021] HKCFI 1129
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMP2259/2020
The court exercised its statutory discretion under s431 to grant a retrospective extension for laying the audited financial statements to 28 December 2020 because the delay was caused by forensic and further investigations, the default was inadvertent, shareholders had been kept informed and no prejudice was shown; the court refused relief under s610(5) because it has no jurisdiction to grant retrospective extensions under that subsection and refused to make an order under s610(7) because the AGM had already been held and a s610(7) order would not remove prosecution risk or serve any useful p…
11 Mar 2016
崔 對 李
- Citation
- 崔 對 李
- Court
- Family Court
- Case number
- FCMC17031/2014
Applying the broad‑brush approach the court adjusted the applicant's Form E items downward where unsupported or exaggerated by receipts, accepted reasonable items (food HK$8,000; insurance HK$958.33; transport HK$1,000; clothing HK$1,000; personal grooming HK$1,500; entertainment HK$1,000; holidays HK$1,000; support for mother HK$1,000) to reach monthly maintenance of HK$15,458.33 (rounded to HK$15,500). The retrospective claim was refused for lack of explanation and prompt application; the award takes effect from 10 April 2016. The respondent's income and outgoings demonstrate capacity to pa…
2 May 2014
PANG SIU HIN v. TAI WO TONG PHARMACEUTICAL (HONG KONG) COMPANY LTD
- Citation
- PANG SIU HIN v. TAI WO TONG PHARMACEUTICAL (HONG KONG) COMPANY LTD
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMP2476/2013
Although the breaches were inadvertent, minor and caused no prejudice, the court refused the retrospective extensions under section 122(1B) because the applicant produced no evidence of a legitimate purpose (such as that the listing would be jeopardised), and the breaches occurred over three years ago so prosecution was not realistically in prospect, rendering the applications largely academic and an inappropriate exercise of the court's discretion.
30 Jan 2014
SHUM CHIU HUNG v. STEELMINE MINERALS (H.K.) DEVELOPMENT LTD
- Citation
- SHUM CHIU HUNG v. STEELMINE MINERALS (H.K.) DEVELOPMENT LTD
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMP2303/2013
Retrospective extensions under s122(1B) were refused because the companies had long periods where accounts were not prepared or audited until years later, the evidence failed to show inadvertence or that competent persons had been charged and relied upon, auditors' engagement documents undermined assertions of prior appointment, and the primary stated purpose (listing disclosure) no longer justified granting relief which would effectively relieve directors of potential criminal liability.
28 Oct 2013
BEST FUTURE WORLDWIDE LTD v. CLUB KINGDOM THE CENTRAL GROUP LTD
- Citation
- BEST FUTURE WORLDWIDE LTD v. CLUB KINGDOM THE CENTRAL GROUP LTD
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMP1448/2013
The court declined to exercise its discretion to grant retrospective orders because the evidence did not establish inadvertence; the breaches were more consistent with indifference or an attempt to avoid the costs of audited accounts, the applications were retrospective and numerous, and a proposed listing was not by itself a sufficient justification to regularise extensive unexplained non-compliance.