Read the full judgment text of FCMC 3435/2015 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment was delivered on 26 May 2022 before 勞杰民.
Matrimonial proceedings – Leave to appeal – District Court Ordinance s.63A – Ancillary relief – Judicial discretion – Costs – Whether petitioner had reasonable chance of success – Leave refused – Costs awarded to Respondent. Petitioner sought leave to appeal against a judgment dated 24 January 2022 regarding property division and contributions. Petitioner argued the judge ignored objective evidence, overlooked his contribution during marriage, and deviated from equal property division. The court held that the original judgment had fully considered evidence on property valuation, IOUs, and mortgage payments. The court noted the wife paid mortgage balances after March 2011 and the husband made no contribution after separation in July 2011. The court also noted the original judgment gave weight to an agreement regarding property transfer as a reason to deviate from equal division. Citing LKW v DD and Parra v Parra, court emphasized judicial discretion in ancillary relief cases. The court held that the judge's role is quasi-inquisitorial and must avoid over-investigation. Leave to appeal refused as no reasonable chance of success. Petitioner ordered to pay Respondent's costs of HK$43,000.
Legal issues: Grant of leave to appeal
Outcome: Leave to appeal refused; summons revoked.
Cited by 1 case