Ww v Lln Formerly Known As Lsm

CourtFamily Court (Hong Kong)
Judgment Date26 Sep 2019
Neutral Citation[2019] HKFC 253
Judgement NumberFCMC4996/2018
SubjectMatrimonial Causes
FCMC4996B/2018 WW v. LLN formerly known as LSM

FCMC 4996/2018

[2019] HKFC 253

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES NO. 4996 OF 2018

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

BETWEEN
WW Petitioner
and
LLN Respondent
formerly known as
LSM

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

Coram: HH Judge C.K. Chan in Chambers (Not Open to Public)
Date of Hearing: 25 September 2019
Date of Supplemental Judgment: 26 September 2019

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

SUPPLEMENTAL JUDGMENT
(Leave to Appeal)

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

1. This is a hearing subsequent to the handing down of my judgment (“the original judgment”) dismissing the petitioner husband (“the husband”)’s application for leave to appeal against the maintenance pending suit (“MPS”) order granted on 23 July 2019.

2. At §44 of the original judgment, I dismissed the husband’s summons for leave to appeal and then (at §45) went on to deal with the question of costs. Despite the fact that the respondent wife (“the wife”) succeeded in resisting the leave application, I was under the erroneous impression that she has failed to lodge her statement of costs as previously directed. Due to this erroneous assumption, I have decided to exercise my discretion in denying her costs. My mistake was immediately pointed out by the legal representatives of the wife and thus I direct this hearing to be held and that the sealing of the leave application order is to be withheld.

3. At today’s hearing, it is common ground that the wife did lodge her statement of costs as previously directed. Therefore, the basis upon which I have exercised my discretion in denying her costs was unfounded.

4. After hearing submissions, I am of the view that I do have inherent power to rectify the mistake which is clear and unambiguous before the order is sealed. There are clear English authorities to say that an order pronounced by a judge can always be withdrawn, or altered or modified, by him until it is drawn up, passed and entered: Re St. Nazaire Co. (1879) 12 Ch. D. 88; Re Suffield and Watts, ex p. Brown (1888) 20 Q.B.D. 693; Re Harrison’s Share Under A Settlement Harrison v Harrison and Others; Re Ropner’s Settlement Trusts Ropner v Ropner and Others [1955] 1 All ER 185.

5. The alternative is of course to allow leave to appeal (on this point alone) for...

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