K,LYS v. T,CKE

FCMC 10356/2013

[2026] HKFC 85

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES

NUMBER 10356 OF 2013

________________________

________________________

________________________

JUDGMENT
(Application for Leave to appeal)

________________________

Introduction

1.  This is an application by the respondent husband (“Husband”) for leave to appeal against my order made on 23 February 2026 refusing his application for transcript and audio recording of the Pre-Trial Review held on 6 January 2026.

2.  The Husband’s application was refused on the ground that no oral evidence was given at the hearing on 6 January 2026.

3.  At the end of the hearing on 6 January 2026, I dismissed the Husband’s three summonses filed on 29 May 2025, 15 September 2025 and 5 January 2026 on the ground that the Husband’s applications were unmeritorious. The leave to appeal against the said decision was handed down on 10 March 2026. See: [2026] HKFC 39.

The Husband’s submissions

4.  In essence, the Husband submitted that submissions made at the hearing on 6 January 2026 was equivalent to oral evidence given at the hearing, hence he is entitled to have the transcript and/or audio recordings of the hearing.

5.  After the Husband filed his written submissions on 27 March 2026, he further filed an affidavit on 31 March 2026 without leave of the court to make further submissions.

The Husband’s leave to appeal application

The law

6.  The test for leave to appeal is set out in Section 63A of the District Court Ordinance (“DCO”) which states:

“Leave to appeal shall not be granted unless the judge hearing the application for leave is satisfied that the appeal has a reasonable prospect of success or there is some other reason in the interests of justice why the appeal should be heard.”

7.  Upon considering the Husband’s submissions and his affidavit filed on 31 March 2026, I found the Husband’s intended appeal entirely unmeritorious.

8.  First, no oral evidence was given at the hearing on 6 January 2026. Order 68 rule 1 of the Rules of the District Court (Cap. 336H) provides that if no oral evidence was given in court before the judge, the court do not provide for an official note or transcript to be supplied to any of the parties. See: Chan Tsui Yan v Social Workers Registration Board [2019] HKCA 279 and Lam Chit Man t/a Yat Cheong Electric Co v. The Pacific Insurance Co. Ltd. [2001-2003] HKCLRT 156.

9.  Second, the written decision regarding the Husband’s application for leave to appeal against my decision made on 6 January 2026 was handed down on 10 March 2026. Deputy High Court Judge Le Pichon commented in Re Senrich Industries Ltd, unreported HCMP 113/2013, 7 May 2014, that where a court has given a written decision which is the subject for leave to appeal, the transcript becomes entirely irrelevant.

10.  Third, as explained by Hon Linda Chan J in SKK (H.K.) Co. Ltd. and another v. Tsui Po Hing and another [2022] 1 HKLRD 1429, it is the responsibility of the parties to take notes of the proceedings if and insofar as they consider it necessary to do so. Provision of transcripts is the exception rather than the rule.

11.  I found that the matters mentioned in the Husband’s submissions and affidavit have no bearing on the Court’s analysis of the three unmeritorious applications taken out by him on 29 May 2025, 15 September 2025 and 5 January 2026. I therefore refused to exercise my discretion to grant the request for transcript and audio recording.

Conclusion

12.  In conclusion, for the reasons I have given above, the Husband’s summons filed on 27 March 2026 be dismissed.

13.  Since the Wife did not file any submission in respect of the Husband’s intended appeal, I made no order as to costs in respect of the Husband’s application.