Ckk v Ckf And Others

CourtFamily Court (Hong Kong)
Judgment Date19 Apr 2018
Neutral Citation[2018] HKFC 53
Judgement NumberFCMC1556/2014
SubjectMatrimonial Causes
FCMC1556/2014 CKK v. CKF AND OTHERS

FCMC 1556/2014

[2018] HKFC 53

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

FAMILY COURT

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES NO.1556 OF 2014

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

BETWEEN
CKK Petitioner

and

CKF 1st Respondent
CSH 2nd Respondent
CSK 3rd Respondent
CSC 4th Respondent

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

Coram : Deputy District Judge D. Cheung in Chambers (Not open to public)

Date of Hearing : 10th January 2018

Date of Judgment : 19th April 2018

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

RULING

(Interlocutory Injunction)

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

Introduction

1. On 7th March 2017, the Petitioner (hereinafter called “P”) originally made an ex parte application to this Court for an interim injunctive order against the 4th Respondent (hereinafter called “R4”) in respect of the dealings of some landed property in the mainland China (“the Property”), and was granted on 7th March 2017 (“ex parte order”).

2. The relevant Inter-partes summons was later taken out on 8th March 2017 and returnable on 16th March 2017 and the ex parte order was continued on the returned date and further continued on 29th March 2017 and 20th July 2017 respectively (“the Injunction order“).

3. At the hearing on 29th March 2017, R1 and R4 sought direction for the filing of further affirmations in opposition to the continuation of the Injunction order and at the hearing on 20th July 2017, by consent R1 and R4 agreed to continue with the Injunction order until this present hearing.

4. The terms of the Injunction order can be found in Bundle A page 73 to 81 which I shall not repeat here.

5. Apart from P’s claim in relation to the Property, P also claims against R1 and R4 respectively in relation to a number of other properties (other Properties”).

6. In parallel to the Injunction order, P took out the Amended Inter-partes Summons on 16th May 2017 in relation to the preliminary issues to be tried by the Court and also joining R2 to R4 as respondents to these proceedings.

7. However, no application for interim injunctive relief has been made by P in relation to the other Properties claimed by P as forming part of the matrimonial pool.

8. There shall be trial of preliminary issues of the beneficial ownerships of the Property and the other Properties together with the questions relating to the Power of attorney and the intended Divorce Agreement (as both defined in P’ Points of Claim at para.15 thereof).

9. P and R1 have different cases on the background leading to the signing of the Power of Attorney and the Intended Divorce Agreement and the validity of the Power of Attorney and the Intended Divorce Agreement are to be tried also in the trial of the preliminary issues.

The issues of the case

10. Mr. Eric Leung, Counsel for P submitted that R4 essentially agreed with P’s approach that anything P and/or R4 received as a result of the transfer of the buildings in question should be frozen until at least the final determination of the preliminary issue as indicated at paragraph 21 of R4’s affirmation dated 30th June 2017.

11. Mr. Enzo Chow, Counsel for R1 and R4 submitted that R1 and R4 did not seek to argue that the Injunction order should not have been granted. They only argued that the amount restrained should not be the whole of the compensation payable to R4 by the relevant authority in the PRC.

12. Mr. Chow submitted that in R4’s first affirmation dated 30th June 2017, R4 proposed that RMB44,043,231.38 should be frozen pending the outcome of the further proceedings. R4 disclosed that the total amount to be received by R4 from the relevant authority in relation to the resumption of the Property would be RMB102,431,398.

13. The basis of R4’s proposal is that there will be trial of the preliminary issue in relation to the ownership of the Property and that P will not be entitled to more than half of the total value of the Property even if the Property forms part of the matrimonial pool. Therefore, even assuming the compensation received in relation to the Property forms part of the family assets of P and R1, P at most can have one-half of the...

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