Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Unreasonable behaviour

  • 20 Apr 2023

    LYL v. CCHS

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 72
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC5373/2022

    The application was dismissed because the respondent offered no acceptable explanation for inordinate delay in seeking leave to file his Answer and Cross Petition out of time and the proposed pleadings disclosed no reasonable prospect of success; he therefore failed to show it was probable the decree was obtained contrary to the justice of the case, so leave is refused and the Registrar's Certificate remains operative.

  • 10 Feb 2023

    YKY v. MSYM

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 24
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC3613/2022

    The respondent was personally served and chose not to defend; he failed to show substantial grounds that the decree was obtained contrary to the justice of the case; the petitioner proved injuries from the respondent's assault satisfying s11A(2)(b); accordingly the application to set aside the Registrar's certificate and Decree Nisi was dismissed.

  • 1 Nov 2021

    WOL v. CKC

    Citation
    [2021] HKFC 221
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC9488/2018

    On the exercise of the court's discretion, no order as to costs of the main suit is appropriate because neither party achieved a clear success on the unreasonable behaviour pleadings, the wife sensibly pursued two years separation by withdrawing and refiling which avoided further contested litigation, the husband did not obtain dismissal and should not be penalised for withholding consent, and the wife's late claim for costs from 8 July 2020 was unpleaded and unexplained. The court therefore ordered no order as to costs of the main suit and made an order nisi that costs of the determination o…

  • 7 Aug 2017

    LHC v. KHS

    Citation
    LHC v. KHS
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC3343/2015

    The court ordered no order as to costs for both FCMC 87/2014 and FCMC 3343/2015 because the withdrawal of the first petition was a joint, practical resolution reincarnated in the second petition and thus produced no clear winner, and because the parties ultimately consented to a non-fault one-year separation making contested pleadings unnecessary; apparent inconsistencies in petitioner’s affidavits were untested and not sufficient to justify a costs award against her, while respondent’s cross-petitioning on behaviour likewise generated unnecessary costs and therefore costs should not follow t…

  • 7 Aug 2017

    LHC v. KHS

    Citation
    LHC v. KHS
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC87/2014

    First petition was withdrawn and replaced by the second petition as a joint/practical solution following contested amendment proceedings, so neither party prevailed on the first petition and costs should be no order; parties agreed to one-year separation by consent for the second petition which is a non-fault basis and the parties’ conduct and pleadings on both sides produced avoidable costs (including respondent’s cross-petition alleging unreasonable behaviour), therefore the fair and proper order for both main suits is no order as to costs; costs of the argument are awarded to the petitione…

  • 28 Oct 2016

    CKF v. LHL

    Citation
    CKF v. LHL
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC17031/2014

    Because both parties expressly accepted that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, the court would not undertake a full inquiry into contested allegations of unreasonable behaviour that would not affect the entitlement to a divorce; in exercise of its case‑management powers and in line with policy to dissolve marriages expeditiously, the court granted a decree nisi and refused costs.

  • 20 Jul 2016

    陳 對 伍

    Citation
    陳 對 伍
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC392/2015

    Petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof to establish respondent's behaviour met the s11A(2)(b) threshold; material inconsistencies and lack of corroboration (notably over the purpose of the RMB50,000 payment and conflicting accounts of the Beijing and home incidents) made the petitioner's account not sufficiently credible; therefore the court could not conclude the marriage was irretrievably broken on the basis of unreasonable behaviour and the petition was dismissed.

  • 22 Sept 2015

    NTN v. HSS

    Citation
    NTN v. HSS
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC8817/2014

    The court accepted the petitioner's credible evidence of repeated unreasonable behaviour (including assault, threats, refusal to provide financial support and the kindergarten incident) and, applying the Livingstone‑Stallard test and s11A(2)(b), found the behaviour proved and sufficient to show the marriage had irretrievably broken down; decree nisi granted.

  • 9 Apr 2015

    NLT v. LYKJ

    Citation
    NLT v. LYKJ
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC8680/2012

    The court found both parties bore responsibility for failed settlement negotiations: the husband made an imperfect, inadequately detailed offer and did not follow up; the wife did not engage with or propose workable alternatives; a subsequent procedural mistake by the husband's then solicitors caused delay but did not justify indemnity costs. Consequently the court exercised its discretion to make a split costs order: no order up to 1 September 2013; from 2 September 2013 to 10 March 2015 the husband to pay 50% of the wife's costs on a party and party basis (taxed if not agreed) with certific…

  • 7 Jan 2015

    WCP v. TPW

    Citation
    WCP v. TPW
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC8839/2013

    On the balance of probabilities the judge accepted the petitioner's evidence and found that the respondent's violent, controlling and inconsiderate behaviour in the relevant recent period was proved; accordingly the marriage was irretrievably broken and a decree nisi was granted for unreasonable behaviour under s11A(2)(b).