KCMA v. ABC AND OTHERS

KCMA v. ABC AND OTHERS

The court found H's manner of disclosure and litigation conduct to be highly unreasonable and, on that basis, varied the Costs Order Nisi so that the costs ordered to be paid by H to W and the Official Solicitor (insofar as ordered against H) are on an indemnity basis; however W was ordered to pay H's costs of and incidental to the FDR from 12 October 2020 (party and party, certificate for one counsel) because W unreasonably delayed instructing experts and failed to comply with FDR directions; OS's costs of and incidental to the FDR are to be paid and indemnified by W; other specified costs (litigation funding hearings, the 24 Jan 2022 hearing, PwC report) were dealt with as set out and a...

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 3164
Parties
Petitioner: KCMA; 1st Respondent: ABC; 2nd Respondent: PBB (in his capacity as the Trustee of the Family Trust); 3rd Respondent: PBB (in his capacity as the Trustee of the Education Trust); 4th Respondent: K; 5th Respondent: LGA also known as GLA; 6th Respondent: MJRB also known as MJRA
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 October 2022
Case Number
HCMC1/2019
Procedural Posture
Matrimonial Ancillary Relief (divorce) / Variation of Costs Order Nisi (post Judgment)
Outcome
Costs Order Nisi varied in part: indemnity costs awarded against H for costs ordered payable to W and OS; specified costs re FDR and litigation funding reallocated; arithmetic corrections to lump sum and family pot noted (corrigendum to issue)
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Costs Order Variation, Indemnity Costs, Disclosure and Non Disclosure, Litigation Funding, Guardian Ad Litem/official Solicitor, Mediation/fdr Compliance, Setting Aside Trusts, Asset Valuation, Injunctions, BVI Stop Notices, Taxation (us/hk)
Source Language
EN
Family Law Civil Procedure Trusts Law Costs Law Guardianship/official Solicitor Ancillary Relief Costs Order Variation Indemnity Costs +9 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KCMA

Petitioner

ABC

1st Respondent

PBB (in his capacity as the Trustee of the Family Trust)

2nd Respondent

PBB (in his capacity as the Trustee of the Education Trust)

3rd Respondent

K

4th Respondent

LGA also known as GLA

5th Respondent

MJRB also known as MJRA

6th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Matrimonial Ancillary Relief (divorce) / Variation of Costs Order Nisi (post Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Costs Order Nisi should be varied to award indemnity costs to W and/or the Official Solicitor (OS) against H
  2. 2 Whether W should be ordered to pay H's costs for specified periods/events (notably the FDR from 12 Oct 2020)
  3. 3 Whether OS is entitled to indemnity for costs as guardian ad litem and allocation of OS's costs between parties

Ratio Decidendi

The court found H's manner of disclosure and litigation conduct to be highly unreasonable and, on that basis, varied the Costs Order Nisi so that the costs ordered to be paid by H to W and the Official Solicitor (insofar as ordered against H) are on an indemnity basis; however W was ordered to pay H's costs of and incidental to the FDR from 12 October 2020 (party and party, certificate for one counsel) because W unreasonably delayed instructing experts and failed to comply with FDR directions; OS's costs of and incidental to the FDR are to be paid and indemnified by W; other specified costs (litigation funding hearings, the 24 Jan 2022 hearing, PwC report) were dealt with as set out and a...

Court Disposition

Costs Order Nisi varied in part: indemnity costs awarded against H for costs ordered payable to W and OS; specified costs re FDR and litigation funding reallocated; arithmetic corrections to lump sum and family pot noted (corrigendum to issue)

Orders

  • Costs payable by H to W that were ordered in the ancillary relief judgment shall be on an indemnity basis (for those costs ordered against H)
  • The Official Solicitor's costs ordered against H shall be on an indemnity basis