Read the full judgment text of FCMC 1556/2014 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment before Deputy District Judge D. Cheung.
Family Court – Interim Injunction – Mareva Injunction – Matrimonial Proceedings – Good Arguable Case – Matrimonial Pool – Dissipation of Assets – Petitioner sought to continue injunction restraining compensation from mainland property transfer. – Whether Petitioner has good arguable case that property forms part of matrimonial pool. – Whether injunction should restrain full amount or half. – Court found Petitioner has good arguable case. – Court held injunction should restrain full amount as assets held by third party (R4) pending trust determination. – Unlike Ghoth v Ghoth, assets held by third party rather than spouse. – Run down of unrestrained assets by R4 will affect size of matrimonial pool. – Application to vary dismissed. – Costs to P to be borne by R1 and R4 jointly and severally. – P's own costs taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulations.
Legal issues: Good arguable case · Amount to be restrained
Outcome: Application by R1 and R4 to vary terms of Injunction Order dismissed; Injunction Order continued until determination of Preliminary issue or further order.