Read the full judgment text of FCMC 12078/2014 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment was delivered on 4 December 2020 before Deputy District Judge J. Chow.
Family law – Matrimonial causes – Leave to appeal – Ancillary relief – Financial disclosure – Asset concealment – Stay of execution – Costs – District Court Ordinance – Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance – The respondent (husband) filed a summons for leave to appeal against the judgment on ancillary relief dated 27 August 2020. The original judgment ordered the husband to pay lump sum payments to the wife and children, with a transfer of matrimonial property if not paid. The wife alleged material non-disclosure of assets by the husband, who claimed he had no assets except the Land. The parties have two children, and the younger daughter moved to Australia with the wife. The husband was convicted of money laundering. The court considered the standard for leave to appeal under section 63A(2) of the District Court Ordinance, Cap 336. The court held that leave to appeal shall not be granted unless the court is satisfied the appeal has a reasonable prospect of success or there is some other reason in the interest of justice why the appeal should be heard. The husband submitted various grounds including error in finding he concealed assets, error in admitting vague evidence, error in giving weight to wife's evidence, error in failing to consider wife's application to join registered shareholders, error in failing to accept husband's evidence on disclosure on credit cards, error in finding monthly rental income exceeded rental value, error in drawing adverse inference, error in looking at lifestyle, error in considering husband was represented by Director of Legal Aid, error in considering risk associated with illegal activities, error in estimating husband's assets, error in calculating needs, and error in making orders for lump sum payment. The court found the husband has no reasonable prospect of success in the appeal. The court refused to exercise discretion to grant leave to appeal. The court also found no other reasons in the interest of justice why the appeal should be heard. The application for stay of execution was dismissed as the husband failed to demonstrate or justify if good reasons existed. The husband was ordered to pay the wife's costs of the summons, with certificate for counsel, to be taxed if not agreed. The court cited NG v. SG [2011] EWHC 3270 (Fam), [2011] All ER (d) 180 (Dec), Star Play Development Limited v. Bess Fashion Management Limited [2007] 5 HKC 84, and Progetto Jewellery Company Limited v. Lau Chiu Ying & anor (by original action; Joy Design Company Limited v. Progetto Jewellery Company Limited (by counterclaim) (HCA 2548 of 2014 / [2020] HKCFI 1835). The court applied the principles concerning stay of execution as summarized by Ma J in Star Play Development Ltd v Bess Fashion Management Co Ltd.
Legal issues: Standard for leave to appeal · Financial disclosure and asset concealment · Stay of execution · Costs of summons
Outcome: Leave to appeal refused; summons dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 1 case