Lo Kwan Wai-ching, Marilyn v Lo Kwong-hi And Another

Court:Family Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement Number:FCMC186/1974
Judgment Date:04 Jan 1975
FCMC000186/1974 LO KWAN WAI-CHING, MARILYN v. LO KWONG-HI AND ANOTHER

FCMC000186/1974

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HONG KONG

HOLDEN AT VICTORIA

DIVORCE JURISDICTION

ACTION NO. 186 OF 1974

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

BETWEEN
Lo Kwan Wai-ching, Marilyn Petitioner
and
Lo Kwong-hi 1st Respondent
and
Lee Yiu-fong 2nd Respondent

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

Coram: Jones, D.J. in Chambers.

Date of Judgment: 4th January, 1975.

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

RULING

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

1. On the 17th August 1974 I granted a decree nisi to the Petitioner in an undefended petition for divorce on the fact of behaviour pursuant to Section 11A(1)(b) of the Matrimonial Causes Ordinance. By a separate order made at the hearing of the divorce the matters of ancillary relief claimed in the petition were referred to the registrar, Supreme Court in Chambers. This reference to the registrar Supreme Court was made in his capacity as registrar of the District Court by virtue of S.14(4) of the District Court Ordinance. At this stage no answer had been filed by the 1st respondent.

2. Rule 49 of the Matrimonial Causes Rules provides inter alia that a respondent shall not without filing an answer be heard on any question of ancillary relief. When an answer is filed, the proceedings will by order of the registrar be transferred to the Supreme Court under Rule 18(5) of the Matrimonial Causes Rules.

3. The petitioner's solicitors filed a Notice of Intention to Proceed with the application for ancillary relief on the 25th November 1974 following which the petitioner and the 1st respondent filed affidavits of means. However no answer as required by Rule 49 was filed by the 1st respondent. At the hearing of the application before Mr. Registrar Barnes on the 2nd December 1974 various orders were made in favour of the petitioner.

4. On the 11th December 1974 the 1st respondent lodged a notice of appeal against the decision of the registrar which came before a judge of the Supreme Court in Chambers on the 20th December 1974. Having regard to Rule 116(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Rules the learned judge referred the appeal to a District Judge on the grounds that an appeal from the registrar of the District Court necessarily lies to a judge of that Court, and not to a judge of the Supreme Court.

5. Although an answer was not filed to the claim for ancillary relief it appears that...

To continue reading

Request your trial