Litigation Funding in Divorce Proceedings: New Case in Hong Kong Court

WW v LLN, CACV 524/2019, 25 March 2020, CA (Lam V-P and Au-Yeung J)
[2020] HKCA 178, [2020] HKEC 447

This divorce case is a milestone case about litigation funding in Hong Kong, as commented by a Hong Kong lawyer. It is an appeal against order requiring payment of funding per month without temporal limit and backdating of monthly payments. The court allowed in part of the application.

Hong Kong Matrimonial Lawyer: Latest Cases with court’s comments on FDR Proceedings

WW v LLN, CACV 524/2019, 25 March 2020, CA (Lam V-P and Au-Yeung J)
[2020] HKCA 178, [2020] HKEC 447

This case is regarding matrimonial proceedings in Hong Kong. The judgment contains the court’s comments on unsatisfactory protraction of proceedings, including current practice of trial dates not being fixed until financial dispute resolution (FDR) ended without success which contributed to substantial delay. There is also the court’s observation that family judges should take more proactive role in working out reasonable timeframe, proportionate (both in terms of time and money) in light of overall resources and needs of parties, for whole process of resolution of dispute in Family Court.

Hong Kong Divorce Litigation: Whether Judge is entitled to make substantive FDR Order without consent of parties

CSFK v HWH, CACV 318/2019, 8 April 2020, CA (Lam V-P, Chu JA and Chu J)
[2020] HKCA 207, [2020] HKEC 517

This is a divorce case regarding financial dispute resolution (FDR). Regarding theĀ  order made by judge at FDR hearing, the court is to decide whether judge entitled to make substantive FDR order without consent of parties.

Hong Kong commercial litigation lawyer: Summary of New Case in Common Law Derivative Action

Wong Chun Kit v Cheng Kwong Fat, HCA 1705/2017, 19 March 2020, CFI (Lisa Wong J in Chambers)

This case involves Common law derivative action. The defendant shareholders changed mandate for operation of company bank accounts and transferring funds to personal account. The actions are against the defendants for breach of fiduciary duties. The defendants did not dispute company’s entitlement to funds. Application is made for leave to continue with derivative action and for pre-emptive costs order.