S v. S

S v. S

Applying the established family-law principle that ordinarily there should be no order for costs in child-related proceedings unless exceptional circumstances exist, the court found the mother’s conduct was not reprehensible nor was her litigation conduct unreasonable; an adverse order would disproportionately harm...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
S v. S
Parties
Applicant: Applicant; Respondent: Respondent
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 June 2000
Case Number
HCMP5547/1999
Procedural Posture
Guardianship of Minors / Domestic Violence / Child Custody / Costs Hearing Following Consent Interim Orders and Custody Determination
Outcome
There shall be no order for costs including those reserved; respondent successful in contest on costs; costs of the costs contest to respondent to be taxed if not agreed, nisi 14 days.
Legal Topics
Custody, Access, Non Molestation, Interim Injunctions, Costs, Expert Psychiatric Evidence
Source Language
en
Family Law Child Welfare Domestic Violence Civil Costs Custody Access Non Molestation Interim Injunctions +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Applicant

Applicant

Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Guardianship of Minors / Domestic Violence / Child Custody / Costs Hearing Following Consent Interim Orders and Custody Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an order for costs should be made in child-related proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the mother's conduct justified an adverse costs order
  3. 3 Whether the mother's litigation conduct was unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the established family-law principle that ordinarily there should be no order for costs in child-related proceedings unless exceptional circumstances exist, the court found the mother’s conduct was not reprehensible nor was her litigation conduct unreasonable; an adverse order would disproportionately harm her. Consequently the court exercised its discretion to make no order for costs (including those reserved), while awarding the costs of the present costs contest to the respondent to be taxed if not agreed, nisi 14 days.

Court Disposition

There shall be no order for costs including those reserved; respondent successful in contest on costs; costs of the costs contest to respondent to be taxed if not agreed, nisi 14 days.

Orders

  • There shall be no order for costs including those reserved.
  • Costs of this costs contest to the Respondent to be taxed if not agreed, nisi 14 days.