Read the full judgment text of FCMC 14931/2014 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment was delivered on 3 March 2025 before His Honour Judge S. Lo.
Matrimonial causes – leave to appeal – District Court – reasonable prospect of success – asset valuation – beneficial ownership – lump sum payment – costs – stay of execution. The Petitioner, HYF, applied for leave to appeal against the Judgment handed down by His Honour Judge S. Lo on 30 August 2024, citation [2024] HKFC 162, in matrimonial proceedings concerning the Respondent, CSL. The application also sought a stay of execution pending appeal. The Court considered the application under Section 63A(2) of the District Court Ordinance (Cap. 336), which stipulates that leave to appeal shall not be granted unless the intended appeal has a reasonable prospect of success or there is some other reason in the interests of justice that the appeal should be heard. The relevant test requires the applicant to show an arguable case with reasonable chances of success, meaning prospects that are more than fanciful but do not need to be probable, as established in SMSE v KL [2009] 4 HKLRD 125. The Petitioner raised three grounds for appeal. Ground 1 challenged the Court's approach in assessing the values of the Respondent's assets, including Shanghai Colom, RMB 30 million Compensation, HK Companies owned by the Respondent, and the Theme Park. The Court found no merit, noting it had carefully examined documentary evidence such as ledgers and witness testimonies, and applied the principle in Moher v Moher to ensure the non-discloser does not obtain a better outcome than if they had complied with disclosure obligations. Ground 2 submitted that the Court was plainly wrong in concluding there was insufficient evidence to establish that the Respondent was the beneficial owner of Dong Fang Ju Hotel, and erred in finding the Petitioner had secreted sales proceeds of the Ming Yue Road Property. The Court found no merit, stating that if the Petitioner claimed beneficial interest without registered ownership, she should have joined the relevant party and requested a determination of beneficial ownership as a preliminary issue, which she failed to do. Additionally, she failed to show the exact amount of alleged double-counting regarding sale proceeds. Ground 3 argued that ordering the Petitioner to make the lump sum payment within 28 days from the issue of the Decree Absolute was erroneous given her assets were real properties. The Court noted she could apply for an extension of time if necessary. In conclusion, the Petitioner failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospect of success in her intended appeal and there was no other reason in the interests of justice why the appeal should be heard. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed. Consequently, the application for stay of execution pending appeal was also dismissed. Regarding costs, the Court ordered that costs of this application be paid by the Petitioner to the Respondent, to be taxed if not agreed. The decision was made on 3 March 2025 in Chambers, not open to the public. The Petitioner was represented by Ms Bonnie Y.K. Cheng and Mr Jonathan Fung instructed by Ho & Ip, while the Respondent was represented by Mr Enzo Chow and Ms Esther Leung instructed by Chong & Partners LLP.
Legal issues: Test for Leave to Appeal · Ground 1 - Asset Valuation · Ground 2 - Beneficial Ownership and Proceeds · Ground 3 - Lump Sum Payment Timeframe
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Application for stay of execution dismissed.
Cites 2 cases