Read the full judgment text of CAMP 13/2018 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 24 April 2018 before Hon Lam VP and B Chu J.
Divorce – Leave to appeal – Matrimonial Causes Ordinance – Cross-petition – Stay of proceedings – Separation – Ancillary relief – Petitioner moved out of matrimonial home on 9 April 2014 establishing two years' separation by 9 April 2016 – Judge Melloy dismissed original petition, granted leave for fresh petition based on separation, and stayed respondent's cross-petition – Respondent applied for leave to appeal arguing rights to defend suit prejudiced and relied on section 15(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Ordinance, Cap 179 – Whether section 15(1) requires determination of cross-petition issues regarding conduct and financial misconduct before divorce decree nisi – Court followed Grenfell v Grenfell [1978] 1 All ER 561 and SJH v RJH [2011] HKCA 280 – Court held section 15(1) highlights independent duty to investigate but no inconsistency with staying cross-petition in separation cases where marriage breakdown agreed – Ormrod LJ's approach in Grenfell followed that there was no point in conducting inquiry into behaviour merely to satisfy feelings – Court of Appeal in SJH v RJH held court would be loathed to allow parties to use valuable court time to litigate on matter with no impact on divorce itself – Issues can be ventilated in subsequent ancillary relief or children applications – Judge exercised discretion correctly – Leave to appeal declined as no reasonable prospect of success; application dismissed with costs; Petitioner's costs summarily assessed at $87,000
Legal issues: Leave to appeal and interpretation of s.15(1) MCO
Outcome: Leave to appeal declined; application dismissed with costs
Cited by 3 cases · Cites 3 cases