KJ v. KMLM

KJ v. KMLM

Order 22 sanctioned offer regime is inapplicable to applications touching matrimonial finance where court supervision/leave is required; indemnity costs were justified and ordered against Husband and Father because their pre- and intra-litigation conduct (concerted transfer of assets, obstructive and dishonest discovery and evidence) was venal and wicked and caused disproportionate costs; Father is jointly liable from commencement because he knowingly participated in transfers in contemplation of litigation; Husband granted realistic extension to pay lump sum by three instalments actually paid so no interest on instalments; court has no jurisdiction to award interest on maintenance...

Citation
KJ v. KMLM
Parties
Petitioner (husband): KJ; Respondent (wife): KMLM; Intervener (father): KCK
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 May 2014
Case Number
HCMC4/2010
Procedural Posture
Matrimonial Ancillary Relief (division of Matrimonial Assets) / Post Judgment Applications to Vary Ancillary Relief Order and Costs (five Summonses)
Outcome
Ancillary Relief Order varied: indemnity costs awarded with apportionment; extension of time to pay granted; Order 22 consequences rejected; maintenance pending suit varied and discharged; mixed outcomes on costs of summonses (no order on costs of these five summonses).
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Indemnity Vs Party and Party Costs, Sanctioned Offers (order 22), Maintenance Pending Suit, Interest on Lump Sum and Instalments, Discovery and Obstructive Conduct, Third Party/intervener Liability for Costs
Source Language
EN
Family Law Civil Procedure Costs Law Trusts and Property Law Ancillary Relief Indemnity Vs Party and Party Costs Sanctioned Offers (order 22) Maintenance Pending Suit +3 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 6 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KJ

Petitioner (husband)

KMLM

Respondent (wife)

KCK

Intervener (father)

Procedural Posture

Matrimonial Ancillary Relief (division of Matrimonial Assets) / Post Judgment Applications to Vary Ancillary Relief Order and Costs (five Summonses)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Order 22 sanctioned offer regime applies to matrimonial/ancillary relief proceedings
  2. 2 Whether indemnity costs are appropriate against Husband and Father for obstructive/venal conduct
  3. 3 Extent and apportionment of costs liability between Husband and Father including liability prior to formal joinder

Ratio Decidendi

Order 22 sanctioned offer regime is inapplicable to applications touching matrimonial finance where court supervision/leave is required; indemnity costs were justified and ordered against Husband and Father because their pre- and intra-litigation conduct (concerted transfer of assets, obstructive and dishonest discovery and evidence) was venal and wicked and caused disproportionate costs; Father is jointly liable from commencement because he knowingly participated in transfers in contemplation of litigation; Husband granted realistic extension to pay lump sum by three instalments actually paid so no interest on instalments; court has no jurisdiction to award interest on maintenance...

Court Disposition

Ancillary Relief Order varied: indemnity costs awarded with apportionment; extension of time to pay granted; Order 22 consequences rejected; maintenance pending suit varied and discharged; mixed outcomes on costs of summonses (no order on costs of these five summonses).

Orders

  • Husband granted extension of time to pay HK$130,000,000 lump sum by three instalments on 28 Feb 2013, 2 Apr 2013 and 2 Jan 2014
  • No interest payable on any instalment parts of the lump sum