Chin Kung Kin Sau v. Chin Pui Kan
Read the full judgment text of HCMP 1355/1996 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 14 May 1996.
1. There are two matters before us: (1) An application for leave to appeal against an order dated 17 April 1990 for payment of maintenance and property adjustment. This order was made following an order nisi of divorce dated 12 August 1988. (2) A so-called "objection" to the judgment of this court given on 2 February 1996 in Civil Appeal No. 272/95; alternatively an "objection" to the way the judge had dealt with the striking out of the applicant's statement of claim, the subject matter of CA No
|
HCMP001355/1996 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 1996, No. 1355
------------------------------------- Coram: Hon Litton, V.-P., Bokhary and Mayo, JJ.A. Date of hearing: 14 May 1996 Date of decision: 14 May 1996 --------------------- D E C I S I O N --------------------- Litton, V.-P. (giving the decision of the Court): 1. There are two matters before us: (1) An application for leave to appeal against an order dated 17 April 1990 for payment of maintenance and property adjustment. This order was made following an order nisi of divorce dated 12 August 1988. (2) A so-called "objection" to the judgment of this court given on 2 February 1996 in Civil Appeal No. 272/95; alternatively an "objection" to the way the judge had dealt with the striking out of the applicant's statement of claim, the subject matter of CA No. 272/95. 2. As to the so-called "objections" stated in the applicant's written application, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain them and they are dismissed. 3. As to the first matter, the application for leave to appeal, this relates to an order made nearly eight years ago. The matter is more than stale. It has been overtaken by events. The order for periodical maintenance has since been varied. If there are grounds for saying that the circumstances have materially changed since the last order for periodical maintenance the applicant can apply to the District Court for a further variation of that order. 4. As regards the order dated 17 April 1990 for which the applicant seeks leave to appeal to this court out of time, there are no grounds of appeal and the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Representation: Applicant (Chin Pui Kan), in person/present |