LWL v. LMF

LWL v. LMF

The court found the respondent to be the overall more successful party at trial, the petitioner had failed to give full and frank disclosure and failed to respond to the respondent's without prejudice/Calderbank proposals (notably the 20 December 2013 proposal which was close to the eventual outcome); balancing these factors against the respondent's earlier attempt to secure a larger share, the court exercised its discretion to vary the order nisi and awarded costs to the respondent from 20 December 2013 inclusive, taxed on party and party basis if not agreed, with no order as to costs before that date and Legal Aid taxation directions for parties who were aided.

Citation
LWL v. LMF
Parties
Petitioner: LWL; Respondent: LMF
Court
Family Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 November 2015
Case Number
FCMC14442/2012
Procedural Posture
Matrimonial Ancillary Relief / Post‑trial Application to Vary Costs Order Nisi
Outcome
Order nisi varied: respondent awarded costs of ancillary relief proceedings from 20 December 2013 and costs of the present application; no order as to costs prior to 20 December 2013; parties' costs to be taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulations where applicable
Legal Topics
Costs of Ancillary Relief, Calderbank Offers, Full and Frank Disclosure, Sale of Matrimonial Home, Periodical Maintenance, Variation of Costs Order
Source Language
EN
Family Law Matrimonial Property Costs Law Civil Procedure Legal Aid Costs of Ancillary Relief Calderbank Offers Full and Frank Disclosure +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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LWL

Petitioner

LMF

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Matrimonial Ancillary Relief / Post‑trial Application to Vary Costs Order Nisi

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs order nisi should be varied in favour of the respondent
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's without prejudice/Calderbank offers should attract adverse costs consequences for the petitioner
  3. 3 Whether the petitioner failed to give full and frank disclosure such as to justify a costs order against her

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the respondent to be the overall more successful party at trial, the petitioner had failed to give full and frank disclosure and failed to respond to the respondent's without prejudice/Calderbank proposals (notably the 20 December 2013 proposal which was close to the eventual outcome); balancing these factors against the respondent's earlier attempt to secure a larger share, the court exercised its discretion to vary the order nisi and awarded costs to the respondent from 20 December 2013 inclusive, taxed on party and party basis if not agreed, with no order as to costs before that date and Legal Aid taxation directions for parties who were aided.

Court Disposition

Order nisi varied: respondent awarded costs of ancillary relief proceedings from 20 December 2013 and costs of the present application; no order as to costs prior to 20 December 2013; parties' costs to be taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulations where applicable

Orders

  • Respondent awarded costs of and incidental to the ancillary relief proceedings from 20 December 2013 inclusive, including costs previously reserved, to be taxed on party and party basis if not agreed
  • Respondent awarded costs of the present application with counsel certificate