Case Document

100%Judiciary

FCMC 6583/2024

[2026] HKFC 68

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES

NO. 6583 OF 2024

(Formerly No. 6733 OF 2023)

----------------------------

BETWEEN

	H, RS	Petitioner
and
	X, Y	Respondent

----------------------------

Coram:

His Honour Judge S. Lo in Chambers (Not Open to Public)

Date of Respondent’s submission:	25 February 2026
Date of Petitioner’s submission:	11 March 2026
Date of Decision:	15 May 2026

-----------------------

D E C I S I O N
( Leave to Appeal )

-----------------------

1.This is the application taken out by the respondent (“Wife”) for leave to appeal against my decision made on 6 February 2026[1], in which I dismiss her summons filed 8 October 2025 (“Setting Aside Summons”) to set aside the interim injunction granted by DDJ GT Lung on 19 June 2023 (“Interim Injunction”).

Legal principles

2.Section 63A(2) of the District Court Ordinance provides that for leave to appeal to be granted, the intended appeal should have a reasonable prospect of success or there should be some other reasons in the interest of justice why the appeal should be heard.

3.A reasonable prospect of success involves the notion that the prospect must be more than fanciful without having to be probable[2].

Grounds of Appeal

4.The salient facts of the case have been set out in §§ 1 to 15 of my Decision (Costs and Discovery) handed down on 12 October 2023[3] and §§ 2 to 6 of my Judgment (Discharge of Undertaking) handed down on 19 June 2025[4]. I am not prepared to repeat the same here.

5.As the Wife had agreed to continue with her undertakings under inter alia Recital D(1) of the Order dated 30 June 2023, the Interim Injunction be continued until the Consent Summons set out in Recital F thereof was made in terms by the court. Eventually, upon filing the Consent Summons by the parties on 3 July 2023, which was ordered in terms by me on 4 July 2023, the Interim Injunction has been discharged by consent. There is nothing for the Wife to set aside. It is noteworthy that the Wife was legally represented by very experienced lawyers including Senior Counsel at the time of filing the Consent Summons.

6.Therefore, the Setting Aside Summons is misconceived and must be dismissed with costs.

7.The Wife contends that I did not take into account her complaints of the Husband’s misrepresentation in obtaining the Interim Injunction. Her contentions have been dealt with by me in the Decision (Costs and Discovery) handed down on 12 October 2023 and the Judgment (Discharge of Undertaking) handed down on 19 June 2025. I am not prepared to repeat the same here. This ground of appeal has no reasonable prospect of success.

8.She also complains that the Husband had unlawfully used her BNP Paribas login token. It is denied by the Husband. In my view, this factual dispute can only be resolved at the trial of the ancillary relief and preliminary issue of trust, which has been fixed for 8 days in June 2026. It cannot be a valid ground of appeal.

9.The Wife maintains that the assets under the 2 companies called Dancom[5] and Belsea are trust property. The issue of trust will be dealt with at the trial, but not at the interlocutory application. This ground has no merit.

10.Similarly, the alleged loss suffered by Dancom can be dealt with at the trial. It cannot be a valid ground of appeal.

Conclusion

11.To conclude, the Wife has failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospect of success in her intended appeal and there is no other reason in the interests of justice why the appeal should be heard. Her summons for leave to appeal filed 25 February 2026 should be dismissed.

12.Regarding the question of costs, there is no reason why costs shall not follow event. I order that costs of this application be paid by the Wife. The Husband’s solicitors submitted the statement of costs for $14,269. Some items are excessive. I summarily assess his costs at $13,000 payable forthwith.