KCMA v. ABC AND OTHERS

KCMA v. ABC AND OTHERS

H's application was dismissed because his financial disclosure was piecemeal and unsatisfactory, there was insufficient evidence of a material 40% fall in income or urgency, the consent MPS Order continued to meet the reasonable interim needs of W and the children, and therefore no variation was justified.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1078
Parties
Petitioner: KCMA; 1st Respondent: ABC; 2nd Respondent: PBB (as Trustee of the Family Trust); 3rd Respondent: PBB (as Trustee of the Education Trust); 4th Respondent: K
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 June 2020
Case Number
HCMC1/2019
Procedural Posture
Matrimonial Causes No. 1 of 2019 / Variation Application of Maintenance Pending Suit — Decision (chambers, Paper Disposal)
Outcome
Variation Summons dismissed
Legal Topics
Maintenance Pending Suit, Variation of Consent Order, Financial Disclosure, Interim Relief, Costs
Source Language
EN
Family Law Matrimonial Finance Civil Procedure Maintenance Pending Suit Variation of Consent Order Financial Disclosure Interim Relief Costs

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 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KCMA

Petitioner

ABC

1st Respondent

PBB (as Trustee of the Family Trust)

2nd Respondent

PBB (as Trustee of the Education Trust)

3rd Respondent

K

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Matrimonial Causes No. 1 of 2019 / Variation Application of Maintenance Pending Suit — Decision (chambers, Paper Disposal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there has been a material change in H's income justifying downward variation
  2. 2 Whether H's financial disclosure is sufficient
  3. 3 Whether urgency is established for variation during GAP

Ratio Decidendi

H's application was dismissed because his financial disclosure was piecemeal and unsatisfactory, there was insufficient evidence of a material 40% fall in income or urgency, the consent MPS Order continued to meet the reasonable interim needs of W and the children, and therefore no variation was justified.

Court Disposition

Variation Summons dismissed

Orders

  • Dismissal of H's Variation Summons
  • H to pay W's costs of and incidental to this application to be summarily assessed