沈 對 盧

Read the full judgment text of FCMC 14773/2017 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment before 彭家光.

Matrimonial proceedings – Ancillary relief – Leave to appeal – New evidence – Ladd v Marshall principles – District Court Ordinance s.63A – Costs. This case concerns an application for leave to appeal against an order for ancillary relief made by the District Court. The original judgment, delivered on 13 November 2019, ordered the parties to split joint account funds, awarding the wife 425,000 HKD. The calculation was based on the proceeds of the sale of a second property, deducting the husband's pre-marital contribution of 750,000 HKD, and accounting for funds already withdrawn by the wife. The husband sought leave to appeal, arguing that he had paid 1 million HKD in total for the purchase and sale of two properties, including commissions and legal fees paid in cash. He contended that this amount should be deducted from the property proceeds before splitting, which would reduce the wife's share to 300,000 HKD. The wife opposed the application, maintaining her claim for half of the 1.9 million HKD proceeds. The primary legal issue was the admissibility of new evidence regarding the property expenses, which had not been raised during the original trial. The court applied the principles set out in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 11 WLR 1489 for admitting new evidence on appeal. The court found that the husband would have known about the evidence at the time of the original trial and could have submitted it then, failing the first condition of the Ladd v Marshall test. Furthermore, the husband failed to provide detailed calculations or supporting evidence for his claim, failing the third condition. Consequently, the court refused to permit the introduction of this new evidence. The court also considered whether the appeal had a reasonable prospect of success under section 63A of the District Court Ordinance (Cap 336). The court held that the husband's grounds were already addressed in the original judgment, where the judge had considered property expenses but found no detailed evidence provided by either party. The court noted that the Family Court does not conduct exhaustive retrospective investigations into failed marriages. The judge emphasized that the parties should not quibble over minor contributions such as commissions and legal fees when both parties contribute to the family in various ways, including non-monetary contributions. As the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and no other reasons for justice were found, leave to appeal was refused. The court awarded costs of the application to the wife, issuing a temporary order which would become absolute if no application was made within 14 days. Both parties appeared in person without legal representation. The judgment highlights the strict approach taken by the court regarding new evidence on appeal and the finality of ancillary relief orders in matrimonial proceedings.

Legal issues: Admissibility of new evidence on appeal · Reasonable prospect of success

Outcome: Leave to appeal refused.

Cites 1 case