CHY v. HMK

CHY v. HMK

Because the petitioner had effectively no realistic alternative to issuing the application, the respondent made a late improved offer that did not beat the ultimate agreement and settlement was reached only after intensive negotiation, the court exercised its discretion to order the respondent to contribute 25% of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
CHY v. HMK
Parties
Petitioner: CHY; Respondent: HMK
Court
Family Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 November 2017
Case Number
FCMC11994/2011
Procedural Posture
Matrimonial Causes (child Maintenance Variation) / Costs Determination (ruling)
Outcome
Respondent ordered to pay a contribution to Petitioner’s costs; costs reserved and to be taxed as specified.
Legal Topics
Maintenance Variation, Consent Order, Costs of Proceedings, Legal Aid Taxation
Source Language
en
Family Law Child Maintenance Civil Procedure Costs Maintenance Variation Consent Order Costs of Proceedings Legal Aid Taxation

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHY

Petitioner

HMK

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Matrimonial Causes (child Maintenance Variation) / Costs Determination (ruling)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should follow the event given the matter was resolved by consent
  2. 2 Whether and what contribution the Respondent should make to the Petitioner’s costs given late and improved offer
  3. 3 Extent to which legal aid taxation applies

Ratio Decidendi

Because the petitioner had effectively no realistic alternative to issuing the application, the respondent made a late improved offer that did not beat the ultimate agreement and settlement was reached only after intensive negotiation, the court exercised its discretion to order the respondent to contribute 25% of the petitioner’s costs of and arising out of the application dated 20 February 2017 on a party and party basis to be taxed if not agreed; the petitioner’s own costs to be taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulations; costs of the application to the wife to be taxed if not agreed on a party and party basis.

Court Disposition

Respondent ordered to pay a contribution to Petitioner’s costs; costs reserved and to be taxed as specified.

Orders

  • Respondent to pay 25% of the Petitioner’s costs of and arising out of the application dated 20 February 2017 on a party and party basis to be taxed if not agreed
  • Petitioner’s own costs to be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations