Read the full judgment text of FCMC 7928/2011 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment before Deputy District Judge I. Wong.
Matrimonial Causes – Divorce – Leave to appeal against Decree Absolute – Jurisdiction – Costs – Family Court power to grant leave to appeal out of time against decree absolute – Whether jurisdictional point resolved – Application adjourned sine die – Costs order – No order as to costs with legal aid taxation to Petitioner only – Parties are Indian nationals married in Hong Kong in April 2006 – Union gave birth to two children, son aged 8 and daughter aged 3 – Petitioner petitioned for divorce on ground of one year separation with consent on 15th June 2011 – Form 4 and Consent Summons filed on 22nd June 2011 – Decree Nisi and Consent Order granted on 27th September 2011 – Decree Absolute granted on 14th November 2011 – Respondent applied for leave to appeal against Decree Nisi and Decree Absolute on 1st December 2011 – Respondent’s case based on fraud on part of Petitioner – Alleged she was deceived into signing Form 4 and Consent Summons by Petitioner in one morning when rushing to work – Thought she was signing for purchase of plot of land in India – Interim judgment by Her Honour Judge Chu in FCMC 12016/2010 dealt with same subject matter – Learned judge concluded it is not quite certain whether Family Court has power to grant leave to appeal out of time against decree absolute – Parties urged to consider said Judgment before restoring hearing – Respondent’s Solicitors restored application on 19th November 2012 – Hearing on 24th January 2013 – Court expected counsels to address jurisdictional point – Counsel for Respondent believed jurisdictional point had been resolved – Court drew parties’ attention to Court of Appeal judgments L v. L and LCM v. CYY – Case stood down for parties to consider jurisdictional point – Respondent applied to have application adjourned sine die – Petitioner applied for dismissal – Court accepted jurisdictional point is not easy one – Court ordered Respondent to wait for outcome of pending appeal – Court did not think application ought to be dismissed – Respondent’s ground is fraud on part of Petitioner – Serious allegation which if successful would undermine foundation of proceedings – Court not going to deal with fact-sensitive issues – Respondent should be given chance to argue on merits – Order allowing Respondent’s application to have Re-amended Summons adjourned sine die with liberty to restore – Costs order: No order as to costs in respect of hearing – Petitioner’s own costs to be taxed according to Legal Aid Regulations – Both parties legally aided – Hearing unnecessary and application should not have been restored
Legal issues: Costs order
Outcome: Application adjourned sine die with liberty to restore.
Cites 3 cases