TWC v. LSC

HCMP 3024 & 3036/2014

(Heard together)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NOS. 3024 & 3036 OF 2014

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM FCMC 11594 OF 2012)

________________________

________________________

_______________

D E C I S I O N
_______________

Hon Cheung JA (giving Decision of the Court) :

1.  The respondent wife and her two adult children, a daughter and son applied to be joined as parties to the ancillary relief proceedings instituted by the wife against the petitioner husband in FCMC 11594/2012.

2.  In brief, the wife and husband are the two only shareholders of a company (‘the company’) which carried on a garment business.  The wife and the husband are joint owners of six properties.  The husband is the sole registered owner of one property (‘Million Fortune’) while the wife is the sole owner of another three properties.  The wife and the son are the registered owners of another property (‘Belvedere Garden’).

3.  The common case of the wife and the children is that the children have an interest in the family assets, namely, the interests in the company and the land properties acquired by the funds of this company.  Deputy Judge I Wong refused their application but granted leave to the wife and the daughter to appeal against his decision on the matter arising from the transfer of shares in the company by the daughter to the husband.  He, however, refused to grant leave to appeal to the wife and the son.  The wife (HCMP 3024/2014) and the son (HCMP 3036/2014) renewed their leave to appeal before us against the refusal by the Judge to join the son as a party.  This Court refused the wife’s application with costs to the husband but adjourned the son’s application for him to file further evidence in support of his application.

The wife’s case in HCMP 3024/2014

4.  The wife’s case that the son has an interest in the family assets is couched in vague terms.  We agree with the Judge that the wife has not shown a reasonable prospect of success in her intended appeal on this issue.

The son’s case in HCMP 3036/2014

5.  The son’s case that he has beneficial interest in the company and the landed properties acquired with the funds of this company faces the same problem as that of the wife.  However, a different consideration is required on the son’s claim on Belvedere Garden.  The son’s case on the Belvedere Garden is that the wife purchased it in 1997 as a gift for him.  At that time he was still in Canada so the wife decided that she and the son would be the registered owners so as to enable her to deal with the property on the son’s behalf when he was not in Hong Kong.  Although the wife in her Form E listed this property to be 50% beneficially owned by her and not wholly belonging to the son (the husband also accepted that the son has a 50% interest in this property), we do not consider that, even with this evidence, the son’s assertion that the whole property was intended to be a gift to him is so unarguable that his application for joinder has no reasonable prospect of success on appeal.  Accordingly we will grant leave to the son to appeal on his claim on Belvedere Garden.

6.  As indulgence was granted to the son to file further evidence to support his case, he is to bear the costs of the application for leave to appeal.