Read the full judgment text of FCMC 12236/2014 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment was delivered on 13 November 2017 before Her Honour Judge Sharon D. Melloy.
Matrimonial causes – Leave to appeal – District Court Ordinance s.63A – Forum non conveniens – Jurisdiction – Costs – The Respondent wife applied for leave to appeal a judgment handed down on 24 February 2017 where the Court dismissed her application for a declaration that the Court had no jurisdiction over her and that the divorce proceedings be stayed on the basis of forum non conveniens. The husband argued he had the necessary jurisdiction to issue divorce proceedings in Hong Kong and was domiciled in Hong Kong. The Court found in favour of the husband and dismissed the wife’s summons. The wife sought leave to appeal that judgment on grounds including insufficient weight on expert evidence and error in finding regarding the husband's advantage in India. The Court held that the appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success nor was there some other reason in the interests of justice why the appeal should be heard. The Court found that the onus was on the wife’s expert to produce the judgment in question regarding Indian law. The Court held that the husband would be entitled to a divorce on the basis of two year’s separation in Hong Kong, as of right, which may be denied to him if this matter were to proceed in India. The Court held that the wife chose not to produce evidence that substantial justice could not be done in India. The Court noted that the wife has strong ties in India and has been granted Legal Aid in Hong Kong. The Court held that the wife's application in India has been granted and that an order for restitution has been made. Costs order made against legally aided wife – Respondent wife to pay Petitioner husband's costs of summons seeking leave to appeal – Wife's own costs to be taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulations.
Legal issues: Leave to appeal standard · Weight of expert evidence · Forum non conveniens and advantage
Outcome: Leave to appeal refused.
Cited by 2 cases