Read the full judgment text of HCA 1475/2006 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 4 September 2020 before Deputy District Judge M Lam.
Matrimonial Causes – Prohibition Order – District Court Ordinance s.52E – Enforcement of Consent Order – Spousal Payments – Questnet test – Material non-disclosure – Discharge Summons dismissed – Extension Summons allowed – Costs order nisi. The Petitioner sought extension and the Respondent sought discharge of a Prohibition Order preventing the Respondent from leaving Hong Kong. The Court applied the Questnet test regarding likelihood of leaving, risk of not returning, and obstruction of enforcement. The Respondent had relocated to Singapore permanently and owed over HKD 5.6 million in arrears. The Court found the Petitioner did not materially misrepresent facts regarding the Respondent's employment urgency. The Discharge Summons was dismissed and the Prohibition Order extended for one month. The Respondent was ordered to pay costs on an order nisi basis.
Legal issues: Discharge of Prohibition Order · Extension of Prohibition Order · Material Non-disclosure
Outcome: Discharge Summons dismissed; Second Extension Summons allowed; Prohibition Order extended for one month.
Cited by 31 cases · Cites 1 case