Read the full judgment text of CACV 000445/2002 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 3 June 2003 before Woo JA, Cheung JA, Yuen JA.
Divorce – Decree absolute – Setting aside – Fraud – Substituted service – Procedure – High Court Ordinance s.14(3)(d) – Matrimonial Causes Ordinance s.18 – Whether appeal to Court of Appeal appropriate route to set aside decree absolute obtained by false affirmation – Whether restriction on appeal from order absolute applies to District Court orders – Husband obtained divorce by claiming Wife's whereabouts unknown – Substituted service ordered – Decree absolute granted – Wife discovered divorce later – Husband admitted lying – Court held appeal was correct route due to s.18 MCO preventing re-hearing or fresh action – s.14(3)(d) HCO applies to District Court orders but satisfied as Wife had no opportunity to appeal decree nisi – Appeal allowed, decrees set aside, papers referred to DPP.
Legal issues: Procedure for setting aside decree absolute · Application of s.14(3)(d) HCO to District Court orders
Outcome: Appeal allowed; decree absolute and decree nisi set aside.
Cited by 6 cases