Read the full judgment text of FCMC 1226/2021 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment was delivered on 14 March 2025 before His Honour Judge I Wong.
Leave to appeal – District Court – Matrimonial Causes – Striking Out Order – Children’s Maintenance – Reasonable Prospect of Success – Costs Order Nisi – In Person – District Court Ordinance (Cap 336) s.63A(2) – High Court Ordinance (Cap. 4) s.14AA(4) – Lands Tribunal Ordinance (Cap. 17) s.11AA(6) – SMSE v KL [2009] 4 HKLRD 125 – Zhang Rui Kang v Tunghsu Group Co Ltd [2023] HKCFI 2451 – Wynn Resorts (Macau) SA v Mong Henry [2009] 5 HKC 515 – KNM v HTF (HCMP 288/2011, [2011] HKEC 1210) – Wong Kar Gee Mimi v Severn Villa Ltd [2012] 1 HKLRD 887 – Lee Tak Yee v Chen Park Kuen [2001] 1 HKLRD 401 – Kan Miu Wah v Aeroflot Russian International Airlines (CACV 142/2006, [2006] HKEC 1658 ) – ZJ v XWN, CAMP 67/2018, [2018] HKCA 436 – Wing Fai Construction Co Ltd v Yip Kwong Robert (2011) 14 HKCFAR 935 – The Petitioner applied for leave to appeal against the District Judge’s Judgment of 27 November 2024 which allowed the Respondent’s appeal against Master Chak’s Striking Out Order. The Striking Out Order had struck out the Respondent’s summonses for children’s maintenance when he failed to appear at the hearing on 11 July 2024 due to a trip to the UK. The Petitioner argued the Judge erred in finding Master Chak erred in exercising discretion. The Court applied the test under section 63A(2) of the District Court Ordinance (Cap 336) requiring a reasonable prospect of success. The Court held the Petitioner’s grounds did not have a reasonable prospect of success as the Master Chak was unaware of the vacation of the hearing date when making the Striking Out Order. The application regarding the Costs Order Nisi was deemed premature as the Petitioner had filed a separate Summons on costs. Costs of the leave application were ordered to be no order as to costs. The Court cited SMSE v KL [2009] 4 HKLRD 125 regarding the threshold for leave to appeal. The Court cited Wynn Resorts (Macau) SA v Mong Henry [2009] 5 HKC 515 regarding the reasonable prospect of success test. The Court cited KNM v HTF (HCMP 288/2011, [2011] HKEC 1210) regarding the high hurdle for case management decisions. The Court cited ZJ v XWN, CAMP 67/2018, [2018] HKCA 436 regarding the filtering process for leave to appeal. The Court cited Wing Fai Construction Co Ltd v Yip Kwong Robert (2011) 14 HKCFAR 935 regarding the power to strike out as a last resort. The Court cited Zhang Rui Kang v Tunghsu Group Co Ltd [2023] HKCFI 2451 for the application of the principal. The Court cited Wong Kar Gee Mimi v Severn Villa Ltd [2012] 1 HKLRD 887 applied Lee Tak Yee v Chen Park Kuen [2001] 1 HKLRD 401 and Kan Miu Wah v Aeroflot Russian International Airlines (CACV 142/2006, [2006] HKEC 1658 ) for case management decisions. The Court cited High Court Ordinance (Cap. 4 ), s.14AA(4) and Lands Tribunal Ordinance (Cap. 17 ), s.11AA(6) for comparison. The Court noted the parties were in person. The Court noted the Petitioner also sought recusal of the Judge. The Court noted the Petitioner sought reversal of the Publication of the Judgment. The Court noted the Wife’s Summons is being dealt with separately. The Court noted the Husband did not lodge any Submissions in Opposition. The Court noted the time for him to do so expired on 6 January 2025. The Court noted the Petitioner was unhappy with the negative comments regarding her unilateral application to Master Ho. The Court noted the Petitioner was unhappy with the Judgment. The Court noted the Petitioner lodged an application for leave to appeal on 20 December 2024. The Court noted the Petitioner sought to have the Striking Out Order be reinstated plus costs payable to her. The Court noted the Respondent’s appeal was successful before the Judge. The Court noted the Respondent failed to appear at the hearing on that date. The Court noted the Respondent took out 2 summonses for children’s maintenance. The Court noted the summonses were fixed to be heard on 3 May 2024 before Master Stanley Ho. The Court noted the wife took out her own summons for children’s maintenance returnable on 11 July 2024 before Master Chak. The Court noted the wife wrote unilaterally to Master Ho seeking vacation of the Husband’s Hearing Date. The Court noted the wife’s application was granted by Master Ho on 2 May, 2024. The Court noted the husband wrote to the Registry that he would not be able to attend the hearing of 11 July 2024. The Court noted the husband’s letter was only brought to the attention of Master Chak on 2 July 2024. The Court noted Master Chak directed that the hearing of 11 July 2024 remained unchanged. The Court noted the husband did not appear at the hearing. The Court noted Master Chak made the Striking Out Order. The Court noted the husband then lodged an appeal and was successful before the Judge. The Court noted the wife now seeks to reverse the Judge’s decision. The Court noted the parties have already divorced upon the issue of a decree absolute on 18 September 2023. The Court noted the Judge shall continue to refer to the petitioner as the wife and the respondent the husband. The Court noted the Judge made an order nisi that the petitioner is to bear the costs of the appeal, summarily assessed at $2,000. The Court noted the Judge allowed the respondent’s appeal against Master Chak’s decision on 11 July 2024 to strike out his 2 summonses for maintenance for the benefit of their two children. The Court noted the Judge made an order nisi that the petitioner is to bear the costs of the appeal. The Court noted the Judge allowed the respondent’s appeal against Master Chak’s decision on 11 July 2024 to strike out his 2 summonses for maintenance for the benefit of their two children when he failed to appear at the hearing on that date. The Court noted the Judge made an order nisi that the petitioner is to bear the costs of the appeal, summarily assessed at $2,000.
Legal issues: Leave to appeal against Judgment of 27 November 2024 · Leave to appeal regarding Costs Order Nisi
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal dismissed; no order on costs application.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 6 cases