FWP v. CYMA

FWP v. CYMA

The court ordered the respondent to pay the petitioner's costs because the respondent's explanations and asserted administrative advice did not establish fault by the petitioner nor justify departing from the normal rule that costs follow the event; lack of means was not proven and litigant-in-person status does not merit special treatment; adjournment and procedural omissions did not make it unjust to award costs to the petitioner.

Citation
FWP v. CYMA
Parties
Petitioner: FWP; Respondent: CYMA
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 October 2005
Case Number
HCMP946/2005
Procedural Posture
Intended Appeal From Family Court (fcmc No. 4515 of 2002) / Decision on Costs in Chambers (court of Appeal)
Outcome
Respondent ordered to pay the petitioner's costs of the application and the costs of the respondent's 19 July 2005 application
Legal Topics
Decree Nisi, Costs Orders, Litigant in Person, Rehearing, Appeal, Ancillary Relief
Source Language
EN
Family Law Civil Procedure Costs Decree Nisi Costs Orders Litigant in Person Rehearing Appeal +1 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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FWP

Petitioner

CYMA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Intended Appeal From Family Court (fcmc No. 4515 of 2002) / Decision on Costs in Chambers (court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent should be ordered to pay the petitioner's costs
  2. 2 Whether failure to have the decree nisi pronounced in court or registry advice justifies depriving the petitioner of costs
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's financial position or status as a litigant in person justifies departure from the normal rule that costs follow the event

Ratio Decidendi

The court ordered the respondent to pay the petitioner's costs because the respondent's explanations and asserted administrative advice did not establish fault by the petitioner nor justify departing from the normal rule that costs follow the event; lack of means was not proven and litigant-in-person status does not merit special treatment; adjournment and procedural omissions did not make it unjust to award costs to the petitioner.

Court Disposition

Respondent ordered to pay the petitioner's costs of the application and the costs of the respondent's 19 July 2005 application

Orders

  • Respondent to pay the costs of the application to the petitioner
  • Respondent to pay the costs of the respondent's 19 July 2005 application to the petitioner