DCB v. AB

DCB v. AB

The Father’s litigation conduct, though at times emotive and involving inflammatory language, did not amount to reprehensible or unreasonable conduct warranting departure from the usual practice; he had a bona fide interest and a non‑hopeless case in maintaining care and control. Consequently, in the best interests of the child and given need for ongoing parental cooperation, there is no order as to costs (including reserved costs) except as already ordered; the Mother’s legal aid costs to be taxed under legal aid regulations and interim maintenance costs to be dealt with separately at the forthcoming directions hearing.

Citation
DCB v. AB
Parties
Plaintiff: DCB; Defendant: AB
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 July 2017
Case Number
HCMP2173/2014
Procedural Posture
Wardship/guardianship (care and Control and Relocation) / Costs Decision Following Final Judgment (16 May 2017)
Outcome
No order as to costs of the trial leading to the judgment (including reserved costs) except as otherwise ordered; Mother’s legal aid costs to be taxed.
Legal Topics
Wardship, Care and Control, Relocation, Costs Orders in Child Proceedings, Interim Maintenance, Conduct of Litigation
Source Language
EN
Family Law Child Law Guardianship Civil Procedure Costs Legal Aid Wardship Care and Control Relocation +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DCB

Plaintiff

AB

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Wardship/guardianship (care and Control and Relocation) / Costs Decision Following Final Judgment (16 May 2017)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether exceptional circumstances exist to depart from the usual practice of no order as to costs in child/wardship proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the Father's litigation conduct was unreasonable or reprehensible so as to justify a costs order in favour of the Mother
  3. 3 Whether costs reserved in relation to interim maintenance should be dealt with together with trial costs

Ratio Decidendi

The Father’s litigation conduct, though at times emotive and involving inflammatory language, did not amount to reprehensible or unreasonable conduct warranting departure from the usual practice; he had a bona fide interest and a non‑hopeless case in maintaining care and control. Consequently, in the best interests of the child and given need for ongoing parental cooperation, there is no order as to costs (including reserved costs) except as already ordered; the Mother’s legal aid costs to be taxed under legal aid regulations and interim maintenance costs to be dealt with separately at the forthcoming directions hearing.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs of the trial leading to the judgment (including reserved costs) except as otherwise ordered; Mother’s legal aid costs to be taxed.

Orders

  • No order as to costs in relation to the trial which led to the judgment, including any reserved costs, save those already ordered
  • The Mother’s legal aid costs to be taxed in accordance with legal aid regulations