Read the full judgment text of FCMC 14350/2009 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment was delivered on 24 May 2012 before Her Honour Judge Sharon D. Melloy.
Matrimonial causes – Injunction – Setting aside – Interim relief – High Court transfer – Consent order – Cambodia assets – Ex parte application – Natural justice – Dissipation of assets. This was an application by the Respondent husband that the order made on 3 May 2012 in effect for an injunction, be set aside and/or not be re-instated. The wife asked that the original order remain in force until the matter can be heard in full and on its merits. The parties had entered into a consent summons over a year before, that the order had not been fully complied with. This dealt with the parties’ very extensive business and property interests, which appear to be mainly based in Cambodia. The husband undertook to pay the wife a lump sum of US$8 million and transfer properties/shares. The husband’s non compliance was worth somewhere in the region of US$20 million whereas the wife’s non compliance was worth less than a quarter of that sum. The wife issued the summons of the 30 April 2012 seeking injunctions to restrain the Respondent from pursuing proceedings in Cambodia against the Petitioner or any of her assets and from disposing of his interests in various companies and properties. The husband argued that the order should never have been made and that the wife was required to show that there were exceptional circumstances necessitating such an application without the husband first having an opportunity to file affidavit evidence. The Court considered authorities including Seapower Resources International Ltd v Lau Pak Shing and Slik Hong Kong Company Limited v Gerald Merlyn Evans regarding ex parte applications. The Court accepted that this was clearly an inter partes summons with an abridgment of time and not an ex parte summons. The Court accepted that the first order was too wide in any event and that it should be discharged on that basis. The Court also released the wife from her undertaking which had served to counter the more extreme aspects of the first order. The Court found that the wife is simply seeking to protect what has already been agreed should be transferred to her. The Court held that the wife should have the ability to protect, as far as she is able, what is already the subject of an order from this court, pending a full argument on the issues. The case shall be transferred to the High Court. Costs shall be reserved. The complaint was dated the 3 February 2012 and was a criminal complaint for breach of trust. The husband did eventually withdraw these proceedings. But the wife said in her affidavit that the file without processing order obtained by the Respondent in Cambodia only brings a temporary close to the criminal proceedings. The notice is dated the 23 March 2013. Therefore it would seem that the husband has the ability to reopen this matter until the 23 May 2012. Thereafter, on the wife’s evidence he can only appeal or file the case afresh.
Legal issues: Nature of Application · Discharge of Injunction · Interim Orders Pending High Court
Outcome: Interim orders remain pending High Court hearing; case transferred to High Court; costs reserved.
Cites 3 cases