Read the full judgment text of FCMC 17626/2012 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment was delivered on 18 March 2025 before Deputy District Judge S. Allison.
Family law – Matrimonial causes – Leave to appeal – Delay – Fresh evidence – Ladd v Marshall – Maintenance – Financial provision – District Court – MPPO. The Petitioner (AC) filed an application for leave to appeal against a judgment dated 20 October 2023 regarding financial provision for the daughter (SF). The application was filed 11 months out of time, on 17 October 2024. The Respondent (MFHJ) did not file submissions. The Court considered the delay and the merits of the proposed grounds of appeal. The Court held that the delay was substantial and not excusable, as the Petitioner failed to provide cogent reasons for the 11-month delay despite being aware of the need to appeal as early as June 2024. The Court found no reasonable prospect of success on the substantive grounds. Ground 1 concerned the disclosure of financial aid and school fees; the Court held the maintenance was calculated on a broadbrush basis and the Petitioner's claim was based on a mistaken belief that she was to contribute half of actual school fees. Ground 2 relied on fresh evidence regarding school registration fees; the Court held the Petitioner failed to satisfy the Ladd v Marshall conditions, particularly the requirement of reasonable diligence in obtaining the email from the school prior to trial. Ground 3 concerned items listed in Annexure 1 items 6 to 11; the Court held these were not deductions from maintenance as no maintenance was payable at the time and the Respondent had ceased payments in 2019. Leave to appeal was refused. No order as to costs. The Court applied Section 63A of the District Court Ordinance, Cap.336 regarding leave to appeal. The Court applied Order 58 r 2(4)(b) Rules of the District Court, Cap. 336H regarding the 28-day time limit. The Court applied principles from Tang Chai On v Tang Sing Ki [2016] 5 HKLRD 104 regarding delay. The Court applied the Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489 test for fresh evidence. The Court considered the MPPO s.11(7) regarding maintenance calculation. The Court dismissed the application due to failure to prosecute with due diligence. The Court found the Petitioner had no reasonable prospect of success on any ground. The Court emphasized that litigants acting in person have a duty to find out the relevant appeal period. The Court noted that the Respondent was entitled to regard the dispute as concluded after the appeal period expired. The Court refused to extend the appeal period. The Court dismissed the Leave Application dated 17 October 2024 made out of time. In the absence of any submissions from the Respondent on the Leave Application, there should be no order as to costs. The Court also considered the Petitioner's submissions on the Respondent's financial aid from SF's school and the actual amount of SF's Y9 school registration fee paid. The Court found the Petitioner's approach was patently incorrect regarding the HK$10,000 monthly maintenance contribution. The Court found the Petitioner had exaggerated her expenses and did have the ability to contribute towards SF. The Court found the Petitioner's contribution would be for a limited time as SF was 16 years old at the time of the Judgment. The Court found the Respondent was discharged of any maintenance payable to the Petitioner for the period 1 June 2019 to 1 September 2020. The Court found the Petitioner had agreed to contribute towards the some of the various items but had not made these payments to the Respondent. The Court found it was reasonable for the Petitioner to contribute towards Items 6 – 11 and ordered the Petitioner to make the payment to the Respondent.
Legal issues: Delay in filing Leave Application · Ground 1 - Disclosure of financial aid · Ground 2 - Fresh Evidence (Ladd v Marshall) · Ground 3 - Calculation of Arrears/Items
Outcome: Leave to appeal dismissed.
Cited by 3 cases · Cites 4 cases