Read the full judgment text of FCMC 14129/2005 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment was delivered on 26 May 2017 before 區域法院暫委法官張志偉.
Family Law – Leave to Appeal – District Court Ordinance (Cap 336) s.63A – Matrimonial Home – Sale Order – Vacant Possession – Health Issues – Financial Hardship – Son's Education – The petitioner (female) applied for leave to appeal against a District Court judgment dated 21 February 2017 which ordered the sale of the matrimonial home and the delivery of vacant possession. The previous order required the property to be sold at market price not less than HK$5,300,000 within seven months, with the petitioner to vacate within six months. The petitioner raised six grounds for appeal: (1) the respondent ignored her arguments; (2) the parties should sell the property themselves; (3) inability to vacate due to financial constraints; (4) her son facing university exams; (5) health issues from a work injury; and (6) financial hardship due to inability to work. The court considered the application under section 63A of the District Court Ordinance, which requires the court to be satisfied that the appeal has a reasonable chance of success or there are other reasons of justice for the appeal to proceed. The court held that the respondent's absence at the hearing did not invalidate the appeal grounds. The court found that the parties' failure to follow previous orders necessitated court intervention for the sale. Regarding the sale and vacant possession, the court reasoned that the deposit from the sale could help the petitioner cover rental costs. The court noted that the son's exam schedule was already considered in the previous judgment. The court found the petitioner's health injury was not severe enough to prevent moving, as indicated by a medical certificate showing only 1% loss of earning capacity. The court also held that the petitioner's financial needs were already analyzed in the previous judgment. The court concluded that the petitioner had no reasonable chance of success and no other reasons of justice for the appeal. Leave to appeal was refused. No costs order was made as both parties appeared in person.
Legal issues: 第一點上訴理由 · 第二點上訴理由 · 第三點上訴理由 · 第四點上訴理由 · 第五點上訴理由 · 第六點上訴理由
Outcome: Leave to appeal refused; application dismissed.
Cited by 1 case