W v. W

W v. W

Although the petitioner was found to be an untruthful witness, her dishonesty was ancillary to the central issue of consummation; therefore the court exercised its discretion to award her costs on the petition for nullity and on the cross-petition, to be taxed, and directed specific apportionment of the medical inspectors' fees with the Taxing Master to determine amounts.

Citation
W v. W
Parties
Wife (petitioner in Action No.55; Respondent in Action No.116): W. (otherwise T); Husband (respondent in Action No.55; Petitioner in Action No.116): W.
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 February 1969
Case Number
HCMC116/1968
Procedural Posture
Divorce Jurisdiction — Nullity Petition and Cross Petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights / Judgment Delivered; Costs Reserved and Determined at Post Judgment Chambers Hearing
Outcome
Petitioner granted decree of nullity; respondent’s cross-petition for restitution of conjugal rights dismissed; petitioner awarded costs.
Legal Topics
Nullity of Marriage, Restitution of Conjugal Rights, Allocation of Costs, Appointment and Fees of Medical Inspectors, Taxation Under Legal Aid Regulations
Source Language
EN
Family Law Divorce Civil Procedure Legal Aid Evidence Nullity of Marriage Restitution of Conjugal Rights Allocation of Costs +2 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

W. (otherwise T)

Wife (petitioner in Action No.55; Respondent in Action No.116)

W.

Husband (respondent in Action No.55; Petitioner in Action No.116)

Procedural Posture

Divorce Jurisdiction — Nullity Petition and Cross Petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights / Judgment Delivered; Costs Reserved and Determined at Post Judgment Chambers Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the successful petitioner should be awarded costs despite findings adverse to her credibility
  2. 2 Whether petitioner’s misconduct warranted deprivation of costs
  3. 3 How costs and fees of court-appointed/inspecting medical practitioners should be allocated

Ratio Decidendi

Although the petitioner was found to be an untruthful witness, her dishonesty was ancillary to the central issue of consummation; therefore the court exercised its discretion to award her costs on the petition for nullity and on the cross-petition, to be taxed, and directed specific apportionment of the medical inspectors' fees with the Taxing Master to determine amounts.

Court Disposition

Petitioner granted decree of nullity; respondent’s cross-petition for restitution of conjugal rights dismissed; petitioner awarded costs.

Orders

  • Petitioner to have her costs of the petition for nullity and of the cross-petition for restitution of conjugal rights.
  • All such costs are to be taxed.