Read the full judgment text of FCMC 1601/2018 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment before 彭家光.
Matrimonial proceedings – Ancillary relief – Leave to appeal out of time – Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) – District Court Ordinance (Cap 336) s.63A – Whether leave to appeal should be granted – Respondent applied for leave to appeal against ancillary relief order regarding sale of matrimonial home and asset division – Court considered delay, reasons for delay, and prospects of success – Court found most grounds had no reasonable prospect of success – Court found MPF calculation included funds accrued after separation which should be excluded – Leave to appeal granted only on ground regarding MPF – Costs order made – Adjusted lump sum payment calculated based on excluded MPF amount – Respondent argued MPF funds accrued after separation should not be shared – Court accepted argument regarding MPF funds accrued after separation in 2000 – Lump sum payment adjusted from $56,032.86 to $36,086.42 – Respondent self-represented – Petitioner represented by Lau Yu Chun Law Firm – Judgment delivered on 11 October 2021 – Respondent raised 13 grounds including marriage validity, asset division fairness, and insurance policies – Court rejected grounds regarding marriage validity, insurance policies, and other asset claims – Court noted Respondent's delay in filing appeal was significant without reasonable explanation – Court emphasized finality of litigation given Respondent's age.
Legal issues: Leave to appeal out of time · MPF asset calculation · Other grounds of appeal
Outcome: Leave to appeal granted in part regarding MPF calculation; other grounds dismissed.
Cites 1 case