CWH v. CSMS

CWH v. CSMS

The application to vary was dismissed because the asserted changes did not amount to a material change of circumstances: the business losses predated the consent order, loss of employment was historic and the application was inordinate delayed, remarriage is not a ground to vary, and the payer had available...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] HKFC 123
Parties
Petitioner: CWH; Respondent: CSMS
Court
Family Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
31 July 2018
Case Number
FCMC1810/2014
Procedural Posture
Divorce Ancillary Relief Variation Application (matrimonial Causes) / Judgment Following Trial on Variation Application
Outcome
Petitioner's application dismissed; leave to respondent to restore Judgment Summons; leave granted for enforcement under s.12 MPPO; costs awarded to respondent
Legal Topics
Variation of Consent Order, Lump Sum Payable by Instalments, Maintenance, Enforcement, Costs
Source Language
en
Family Law Matrimonial Finance Civil Enforcement Variation of Consent Order Lump Sum Payable by Instalments Maintenance Enforcement Costs

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CWH

Petitioner

CSMS

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Divorce Ancillary Relief Variation Application (matrimonial Causes) / Judgment Following Trial on Variation Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there has been a material change of circumstances to justify varying a consent lump sum payable by instalments
  2. 2 Whether loss of employment, failure of business investment or remarriage constitute such change
  3. 3 Whether payer has means and has acted unreasonably in defaulting

Ratio Decidendi

The application to vary was dismissed because the asserted changes did not amount to a material change of circumstances: the business losses predated the consent order, loss of employment was historic and the application was inordinate delayed, remarriage is not a ground to vary, and the payer had available resources and had acted unreasonably in defaulting; therefore it would be contrary to principle and finality to vary the lump sum instalments.

Court Disposition

Petitioner's application dismissed; leave to respondent to restore Judgment Summons; leave granted for enforcement under s.12 MPPO; costs awarded to respondent

Orders

  • Application dated 7 December 2017 dismissed
  • Order that Petitioner pay Respondent the costs of the Summons dated 7 December 2017, including all costs reserved, to be taxed if not agreed