Ab Also Known As Abw v Maw

CourtFamily Court (Hong Kong)
Judgment Date13 Mar 2018
Neutral Citation[2018] HKFC 34
Judgement NumberFCMC6310/2015
SubjectMatrimonial Causes
FCMC6310B/2015 AB also known as ABW v. MAW

FCMC 6310/2015

[2018] HKFC 34

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES NO. 6310 OF 2015

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

BETWEEN
AB also known as ABW Petitioner
and
MAW Respondent

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

Coram: HH Judge C.K. Chan in Chambers (not open to public)

Date of Hearing: 13 March 2018

Date of Decision: 13 March 2018

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

D E C I S I O N

(EX-PARTE INJUNCTIONS)

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

1. I have an application for an ex-parte injunction against the petitioner wife.

2. From the limited information I have gained by reading the respondent solicitor’s affidavit, I understand that the parties have gone through a rather lengthy and acrimonious trial before Judge Bruno Chan resulting in a 131-page judgment on Ancillary Relief handed down on 8 May 2017. I note that the Ancillary Relief proceedings are not yet completed as there are still applications on costs and for leave to appeal pending before Judge Bruno Chan.

3. In this ex-parte application, I note that the respondent is asking for the following orders:

(i) The petitioner to withdraw her claim in UK for the enforcement of the HK Judgment, which is in the form of a mandatory injunction.

(ii) The petitioner or her agents to be restrained from taking any further steps in the UK proceedings.

(iii) The petitioner to be restrained from disclosing the terms of this order and the contents of the UK proceedings to any third parties except her legal advisors.

4. I note that in support of this application, the respondent solicitor has filed an affidavit enclosing a draft but unsworn affidavit of the respondent. This is highly unsatisfactory.

5. I have to confess that as I am not the trial judge, I am not in a position to have a full understanding of the history and the facts of the case. However, I note that the first injunction being asked for is for the petitioner to withdraw the UK proceedings. This will have the effect of a dismissal of her UK proceedings. This is in effect a mandatory injunction which I believe should not be granted on an ex-parte basis. The first application is therefore refused.

6. As to the 2nd and 3rd applications, they are applications for prohibitory injunctions. After hearing counsel’s submissions, I am not convinced that they should be granted on an...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT