Read the full judgment text of FCMC 2662/2021 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment was delivered on 27 June 2025 before Her Honour Judge Thelma Kwan.
Matrimonial Causes – Transfer to High Court – Jurisdiction – Consolidation – Bias – Complexity – Costs – District Court – Family Court – Matrimonial Causes Rules – MPPO – FHM v KYM – NLT v LYKJ – Petitioner D, W applied to transfer Matrimonial Causes No. 2662 of 2021 from District Court to High Court on grounds of consolidation with High Court proceedings, time constraints regarding trial dates, apparent bias of the District Judge, and complexity of assets exceeding HK$200,000,000 involving multi-jurisdictional corporate issues and potential criminal matters. The Court considered the applicable principles under Rule 32 and Rule 80 of the Matrimonial Causes Rules and PD15.14, referencing FHM v KYM (FCMC 13457/2013, 9 April 2015) regarding public interest, novel points of law, delay, complicated evidence, financial limits, and special complexity. On consolidation, the Court found the Petitioner’s argument that the 1st Respondent had leave to use documents did not equate to leave to transfer, and contempt proceedings were enforcement actions not indicating an active case status. The Petitioner claimed strong correlation between cases but the Court noted three High Court proceedings were stayed and the remaining one was stayed pending Family Court conclusion. On time, the Court held that milestone trial dates set for January 2026 should not be moved arbitrarily and the Petitioner had sufficient time for discovery applications including a specific discovery application made on 14 May 2025. The Petitioner argued delay was caused by the Respondent regarding asset dissipation and 20 subsidiaries from 5 countries but the Court found the Petitioner had plenty of time since the December 2024 CMH hearing. The Court noted that a lot of issues raised including complaints about dissipation would be dealt with at trial and an early trial date would assist the Petitioner. On bias, the Court ruled that apparent bias is not a ground for transfer to High Court and the Petitioner had previously withdrawn a recusal application on 23 August 2024. The Petitioner alleged conflict of interest due to banking background but provided no specific evidence of crossed paths or competition. On complexity, the Court noted the Family Court handles large matrimonial pots and international implications regularly, citing NLT v LYKJ [2020] HJFC75 and FHM v KYM. The Petitioner failed to provide specifics on the alleged complexities beyond general assertions regarding trust assets and shareholder disputes. The Court confirmed there is no financial limit on the District Court's jurisdiction in this context and HK$200,000,000 is not sufficient reason for transfer. The application was dismissed with costs reserved to the 1st Respondent. The 14 March 2023 application was also dismissed with no order as to costs. The Court emphasized the expertise of Family Court judges in dealing with complex business and family holding structures and confirmed there is no financial limit on the District Court's jurisdiction in this context. The Petitioner appeared in person while the 1st Respondent was represented by Ms Terri Ha of Lee Law Firm. The Court reserved costs and ordered a Costs Order Nisi to be made absolute 14 days later. The judgment was delivered ex tempore on 27 June 2025 by Her Honour Judge Thelma Kwan in Chambers.
Legal issues: Consolidation and Active Case Status · Time and Trial Dates · Bias and Conflict of Interest · Complexity and Financial Limits
Outcome: Application to transfer case to High Court dismissed.
Cites 2 cases