MICHELE HELENE TOMLIN v. NORMAN ERIC TOMLIN

MICHELE HELENE TOMLIN v. NORMAN ERIC TOMLIN

The consent order was a clean break and, on the evidence, the monthly child maintenance of $7,000 per child did not include any element for rent or accommodation. Accommodation needs were dealt with by the lump sum and payments to the Petitioner; therefore the Petitioner’s surrender of tenancy did not change the children's financial needs and did not justify variation under the statutory scheme, so the application to vary was dismissed.

Citation
MICHELE HELENE TOMLIN v. NORMAN ERIC TOMLIN
Parties
Petitioner: Michele Helene Tomlin; Respondent: Norman Eric Tomlin
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 September 1994
Case Number
HCMC4/1993
Procedural Posture
Divorce (ancillary Relief) / Application by Respondent to Vary Consent Order (variation of Child Maintenance for Change of Circumstances)
Outcome
Respondent's application dismissed
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Child Maintenance, Variation of Order, Change of Circumstances, Consent Order, Clean Break
Source Language
EN
Family Law Matrimonial Law Civil Procedure Ancillary Relief Child Maintenance Variation of Order Change of Circumstances Consent Order +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 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michele Helene Tomlin

Petitioner

Norman Eric Tomlin

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Divorce (ancillary Relief) / Application by Respondent to Vary Consent Order (variation of Child Maintenance for Change of Circumstances)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the child maintenance payments of $7,000 per child per month included an accommodation/rent component
  2. 2 Whether the Respondent's change of circumstances (Petitioner surrendering tenancy and moving) justified variation of the consent order under the statutory power to vary
  3. 3 Effect of a consent order made as a clean break on subsequent variation applications

Ratio Decidendi

The consent order was a clean break and, on the evidence, the monthly child maintenance of $7,000 per child did not include any element for rent or accommodation. Accommodation needs were dealt with by the lump sum and payments to the Petitioner; therefore the Petitioner’s surrender of tenancy did not change the children's financial needs and did not justify variation under the statutory scheme, so the application to vary was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Respondent's application dismissed

Orders

  • Respondent's application to vary child maintenance dismissed
  • Order nisi that the Petitioner shall have her costs