Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Setting aside consent order

Legal area

Court

5 Dec 2022

GM-SA aka DG, M-S v. DDPJ

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1778
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP475/2022

Leave to appeal was dismissed because, although the judge had expressed erroneous views at interlocutory stage which were identified by the Court of Appeal, those errors did not establish a reasonable apprehension of bias nor demonstrate that the judge proceeded on wrong principles or that his discretion to refuse recusal was plainly wrong; accordingly the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and leave was refused.
7 Nov 2022

GM SA aka DG, M S v. DDPJ

Citation

[2022] HKFC 237
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC9657/2016

Having considered the challenged passages in context and the subsequent Court of Appeal decision, the judge found no objective basis on which a fair-minded informed observer would apprehend a real possibility of bias or that the judge would not bring an open and impartial mind to trial; case management directions were reasonable in circumstances (including delayed leave-to-appeal judgment and pandemic listing pressures); accordingly the recusal application was dismissed and costs were awarded to the Respondent with a certificate for two counsel.
20 Jul 2022

GM-SA aka DG, M-S v. DDPJ

Citation

[2022] HKCA 870
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV200/2022

The Judge erred in law by pre-emptively limiting relevance of proposed French law expert evidence to a later stage and by determining materiality interlocutorily; expert evidence on French law is relevant to whether, if the consent order were set aside, the PNA would have affected ancillary relief and therefore to the materiality inquiry, so leave to adduce such expert evidence must be granted and the Judge's order of 30 November 2021 set aside, subject to cost orders reflecting the appellant's undue delay.
22 Mar 2022

GM SA aka DG, M S v. DDPJ

Citation

[2022] HKFC 55
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC9657/2016

The judge found the applicant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success: the requested French law expert evidence was unnecessary for the fact-finding on alleged misrepresentation/non-disclosure, the application was a case management decision for which appellate interference is rare, delay and prejudice were properly considered, and no basis existed to grant a stay; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and costs ordered against the applicant.
25 Aug 2021

LEUNG KIT PING AND ANOTHER v. LEUNG SAU CHING and KWOK LAI YING,the executors of the estate of the deceased AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3004
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1878/2020

The application to set aside the consent order was refused because the alleged misunderstanding by the 1st defendant was wholly unsupported by evidence, counsel had ostensible authority and expressly agreed the terms, and consent orders are contractual and are only set aside in exceptional circumstances; the court would not accept the uncorroborated oral evidence from counsel at the bar table.
8 Jan 2021

A v. B

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 77
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2431/2017

The issues and claimed reliefs are within the competence and monetary jurisdiction of the District Court/Family Court and are not of such legal or factual complexity as to require retention in the Court of First Instance; preliminary views expressed by the original family judge do not establish bias sufficient to deny transfer; accordingly the action is to be transferred to the Family Court.
12 Apr 2019

HANNELORE DE LASALA-DEBRING v. ERNEST FERDINAND PEREZ DE LA SALA

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 932
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1029/2013

The court struck out the plaintiff's claim as an abuse of process and dismissed the proceedings because the plaintiff unreasonably and inordinately delayed (decades) in issuing fresh proceedings after the Privy Council decision, causing serious prejudice and loss of evidence; the tort claim was plainly statute-barred; although there was a reasonable prospect of proving non-disclosure, delay and prejudice made any fair re-hearing impracticable and there was no conceivable basis to reassess ancillary relief now.
18 Jun 2014

CHEVALIER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF GLORIOUS GARDEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHEVALIER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF GLORIOUS GARDEN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP739/2014

Leave to appeal was refused because the 2nd defendant failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospect of success; he had knowingly entered into the consent summons and challenging the original injunction is not a proper basis to set aside a consent order absent recognized grounds such as fraud or mutual mistake.
18 Jul 2012

WTOL v. WYPP

Citation

WTOL v. WYPP
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV241/2011

The appeal was dismissed because there are serious disputed facts (on whether the children promised not to deal with the properties and on what was said by the solicitor when documents were signed) making the appeal procedure inappropriate and a fresh action the proper remedy; accordingly paragraphs 2(ii) and 2(iii) could not be set aside on this appeal.
11 May 2012

WONG OI HAN v. SIN WAI CHUNG

Citation

WONG OI HAN v. SIN WAI CHUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP276/2012

Because the applicant chose the High Court originating summons route instead of the limited summons-in-existing-proceedings route, and Lui Sik-kuen v Lee Suk-ling restricts the procedure in Hong Kong, the present originating summons was the wrong procedural vehicle; given respondent's lack of contest and undisputed mistakes, the Allsop exception applied but the applicant should have issued a summons in the Matrimonial Proceedings; accordingly the High Court proceedings were dismissed.