Read the full judgment text of FCMC 2953/2015 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment was delivered on 29 January 2018 before Her Honour Judge Sharon D. Melloy.
Matrimonial causes – Leave to appeal – Stay of execution – Costs – District Court Ordinance s.63A – Star Play principles – Preliminary Issues Judgment regarding beneficial ownership of family companies – Credibility findings – Indemnity costs ruling – Application dismissed. The Petitioner wife and her sister and brother-in-law (the 1st and 2nd interveners) applied for leave to appeal against a Preliminary Issues Judgment dated 13 June 2017 which determined the beneficial ownership of five family companies. The Preliminary Judgment found that all five companies belonged beneficially to the husband and wife, dismissing the declaration sought by the wife and interveners. The wife and interveners also sought leave to appeal an Indemnity Costs Ruling dated 6 November 2017 and a stay of execution of the judgment. The court held that the test for leave to appeal requires a reasonable prospect of success or some other reason in the interests of justice under section 63A of the District Court Ordinance. The wife and interveners faced a particularly high hurdle as the application was mainly a challenge to findings of fact made in the judgment. The court found that the grounds of appeal were essentially a re-run of failed arguments which had been rejected on the facts. The court also found that the wife and interveners had lied repeatedly during the litigation process to obtain the family businesses. Regarding the stay of execution, the court applied the principles from Star Play Development Ltd v. Bess Fashion Management Co. Ltd, which require good reasons to justify a stay. The court found that an application for a stay has a stronger chance of success if there are correspondingly strong grounds for the appeal, which was not the case here. The court also noted that the application smacked of litigation window dressing. The court found that while the litigation conduct of the wife and interveners was of an extreme type, the costs of this specific application would be on a party and party basis. The court acknowledged that the wife and interveners had deceived the Court on multiple aspects of the case and attempted to deprive the husband of relevant documentary evidence. However, the court decided that costs shall follow the event in the normal way and the Petitioner and interveners shall pay the Respondent's costs on a party and party basis. Leave to appeal dismissed; Stay of execution refused; Costs awarded to Respondent.
Legal issues: Leave to appeal · Stay of execution · Costs of application
Outcome: Leave to appeal dismissed; Stay of execution refused; Costs awarded to Respondent.
Cited by 5 cases