1 Dec 2014
Application dismissed because petitioner failed both limbs of s17A(4): he did not establish circumstances making prompt grant desirable, and his undertaking/proposal was not satisfactory or sufficient (offered provision was below what appears reasonable on Form E and disclosure was incomplete), therefore court could not dispense with ss17A(2) and (3).
27 Jun 2012
The court exercised its discretion under s.17A(4) of the Matrimonial Causes Ordinance to make the decree nisi pronounced on 17 November 2011 absolute forthwith because circumstances made it desirable to do so and the Petitioner provided a satisfactory undertaking to make such financial provision for the Respondent as the court may approve; the DA Summons was not premature when assessed at the hearing; costs ordered to the Petitioner against the 1st Respondent.
6 Dec 1985
The decree absolute issued after the Notice of Appeal was voidable but not void; the Court exercised its discretion not to void the decree because the husband acted bona fide and voiding would unfairly prejudice parties and new family; the appeal was allowed insofar as maintenance orders were varied: monthly maintenance increased and allocated to include the twin sons, lump sum of $50,000 affirmed, and a contingent order that the husband pay one-third of the lump sum pension payable on completion of Government service to the wife if she is alive then.