Read the full judgment text of FCMC 8680/2012 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment was delivered on 23 March 2020 before Her Honour Judge Sharon D. Melloy.
Matrimonial Causes – Joinder of parties – Transfer of proceedings – Ancillary relief – Beneficial ownership – Costs – District Court – Family Court – Order 15 rule 6 – Matrimonial Causes Rules – Petitioner wife (NLT) and Respondent husband (LYKJ) are involved in matrimonial ancillary relief proceedings concerning the division of assets. The Petitioner wife applied to join three corporate entities (ZT Limited, P Asset Management Limited, JG Limited) as respondents to the ancillary relief proceedings. The purpose of the joinder was to determine the preliminary issue of the beneficial owner of several properties including flats and parking spaces in Kowloon. The Respondent husband applied to transfer the ancillary relief proceedings up to the High Court by virtue of his summons dated the 9 October 2019. The husband argued that the dispute involved high estimated net asset value of HK$50.155 million and there was a nexus between the present proceedings and three High Court Actions involving the determination of ZT Limited’s claims regarding the subject properties. The husband also alleged that the Petitioner’s judge held prejudicial views against him. The Court considered the application for joinder pursuant to Order 15 rule 6 of the Rules of the High Court. The Court considered the application for transfer pursuant to Rule 32 and Rule 80 of the Matrimonial Causes Rules, Cap 179A, together with Practice Direction 15.14. The Court referred to authorities including Fisher Meredith v JH and PH (Financial Remedy: Appeal: Wasted Costs) [2010] 2 FLR 536 and LLC v LMWA [2019] 2 HKLRD 529. The Court held that it was prudent to join the three intended Respondents to these proceedings so that all interested parties may be given an opportunity to participate in the family litigation process. The Court agreed that the matter should be dealt with by one court and that this should be the Family Court. The Court dismissed the husband’s transfer up summons dated the 9 October 2019. The Court was unpersuaded by the arguments advanced by the husband regarding the asset value and the stage of the High Court actions. The Court did not accept the allegation of prejudice against the husband. The Court ordered that the Respondent husband shall pay the Petitioner wife the costs of and arising out of all three summonses referred to above on a party and party basis to be taxed if not agreed. The Court directed that ZT Limited, P Asset Management Limited and JG Limited be informed of the joinder decision within the next 7 days. The Court adjourned the matter for further directions. The Court made orders for paper disposal of certain summons. The Court noted that the Family Court has a pool of judges who are very experienced in matrimonial work dealing with many millions of dollars and with international implications. The Court found that none of the factors for transfer were present in this case. The Court noted that the pleadings are not yet closed in the High Court actions. The Court found that the husband’s case regarding beneficial ownership had changed over time. The Court found that the more likely route is that the matter will need to proceed to a preliminary issues trial.
Legal issues: Joinder of third parties · Transfer of proceedings to High Court · Costs
Outcome: Joinder application granted; Transfer up application dismissed; Costs awarded to Petitioner
Cited by 4 cases · Cites 2 cases