Hong Kong Judgment

Family Court

T v. C

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Given the husband's declared actual income of approximately HK$5,000–6,000 per month, his surplus capacity and refusal to negotiate, the court ordered an additional attachment of HK$500 per month from his HKJC earnings until arrears are paid (over a period of 194 months) and awarded costs to the wife; imprisonment was not ordered as it is a last resort.

Court disposition

Attachment of earnings order granted for further HK$500 per month until arrears paid in full; costs awarded to petitioner to be taxed in accordance with legal aid regulations; no imprisonment ordered.

Orders

  • Order that a further HK$500 per month be attached to the husband\'s income with the HKJC until payment has been made in full (for a period of 194 months)
  • Order that the husband pay the wife\'s costs; the wife\'s costs to be taxed in accordance with legal aid regulations
  • No imprisonment ordered at this stage

02

Material facts

Parties

T

Petitioner Counsel: Ms D Chu (Legal Aid Department)

C

Respondent Counsel: Respondent in person

Amounts and remedies

  • Total Arrears: HKD 97,000
  • Original Maintenance Monthly: HKD 4,000
  • Reduced Maintenance Monthly: HKD 2,000
  • Undertaken Arrears In2006: HKD 68,000
  • Ordered Monthly Attachment: HKD 500
  • Attachment Duration Months: 194
  • Salary Range Lower Monthly: HKD 11,000
  • Salary Range Upper Monthly: HKD 13,390
  • Max Hkjcmonthly: HKD 6,000
  • Employer Certificate Approx Monthly: HKD 5,175
  • Payment to Parents Monthly: HKD 2,000

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Matrimonial Causes / Judgment

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Wife applied for attachment of earnings order and judgment summons for arrears totaling HK$97,000 and sought attachment of HK$1,000 per month to husband's HKJC income; she did not seek imprisonment.
Respondent
Husband claimed limited current income from part-time HKJC work (approximately HK$5,000–6,000 per month), is a bankrupt (adjudged 2005), resigned full-time work to apply for public housing, pays HK$2,000 monthly maintenance and HK$2,000 to parents, and asserted inability to pay higher amounts; he refused to negotiate further.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Family Court practice / District Judge Melloy

    Imprisonment for non-payment of maintenance is a last resort and only for wilful default after other avenues exhausted

  2. 02

    Matrimonial causes enforcement principles / District Court discretion

    Court may order attachment of earnings to satisfy child maintenance arrears as part of enforcement powers

  3. 03

    Civil procedure principle / District Court discretion

    Costs may be awarded where a party refuses reasonable negotiation or offers

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Given the husband's declared actual income of approximately HK$5,000–6,000 per month, his surplus capacity and refusal to negotiate, the court ordered an additional attachment of HK$500 per month from his HKJC earnings until arrears are paid (over a period of 194 months) and awarded costs to the wife; imprisonment was not ordered as it is a last resort.

Obiter and limits

  • The husband has earning capacity exceeding his current declared earnings but is choosing not to seek full-time work while applying for public housing
  • Obligations to a child take precedence over voluntary family contributions to parents
  • The husband made token payments and repeatedly defaulted, supporting enforcement rather than custodial sanctions

Court disposition

Attachment of earnings order granted for further HK$500 per month until arrears paid in full; costs awarded to petitioner to be taxed in accordance with legal aid regulations; no imprisonment ordered.

  • Order that a further HK$500 per month be attached to the husband\'s income with the HKJC until payment has been made in full (for a period of 194 months)
  • Order that the husband pay the wife\'s costs; the wife\'s costs to be taxed in accordance with legal aid regulations
  • No imprisonment ordered at this stage

Source and reliance status

Family Court · 17 December 2007

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Family Court

Judgment· 17 December 2007

T v. C

bjbj FCMC3907/2004

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION MATRIMONIAL CAUSES NO. 3907 OF 2004

BETWEEN T Petitioner (Judgment Creditor) and C Respondent (Judgment Debtor) Coram: H H Judge S. D. Melloy in Court Date of Hearing: 17 December 2007 Date of Judgment: 17 December 2007

J U D G M E N T This is an application by a wife for an attachment of earnings order and judgment summons in relation to the arrears of maintenance for the child of the family in the total sum of HK$97,000. The husband originally agreed to pay $4,000 per month by virtue of an interim order at a first appointment hearing. An interim order was originally made on 2 August 2004. This became a final order of the court on 5 June 2005. The husband made one payment and subsequently defaulted. On 27 March 2006 the husband undertook to pay the arrears, which then stood at HK$68,000, by instalments of $1,000 per month. Maintenance was reduced, by consent, to $2,000 per month. Again the husband made one payment and then defaulted. On 9 July 2007 the husband agreed to an attachment of earnings order with respect to the ongoing maintenance of $2,000 per month. However, there was no agreement in relation to the outstanding arrears. The issue before the court today is how should those outstanding arrears be dealt with? Imprisonment is considered a last resort in the Family Court, even where the default has been wilful and one that is not considered unless all other avenues have been exhausted. In this instance the wife seeks not imprisonment, but that the arrears be attached to the husband s income at the HKJC at a rate of $1,000 per month. Can then the husband afford to pay $1,000 per month

in addition to the $2,000 per month that he presently pays? It appears from the three Form Es filed by the husband that he was previously in gainful employment. He has worked for DK and L G&J Limited. His salary from these full-time jobs has varied, but he has in addition worked part-time for the HKJC. During cross-examination the husband admitted that his total income from both jobs had varied from about $13,390 per month to approximately HK$11,000 per month. However, the husband was also heavily in debt. In February 2005 he was adjudged a bankrupt. Therefore at times his income did not match his outgoings. He confirmed, however, that since he was adjudged a bankrupt he has not been required to pay any contribution to the Official Receiver s Office. In February 2007 the husband, of his own volition, resigned from his full-time job with L G&J Limited. He is frank about this. He explains that he is in the process of applying for a public housing unit, and therefore that his salary cannot be greater than between $6,000 to $7,000 per month. He is, therefore, simply relying at present on his part-time job with the HKJC. During cross-examination he said that this income varied, but that generally he can work for a maximum of a 120 hours per month at $50 per hour, or in other words $6,000 per month. This is the maximum that he can earn, although there have been exceptions in the past

when the HKJC was short of staff and then he earned slightly more. The employer s certificate shows that he earned just over $31,000 for a period from April to September 2007, or approximately $5,175 per month. It seems to me that the husband has an earning capacity far in excess of this amount and that he has simply decided not to seek full-time employment until his application for public housing has been processed. That be as it may, for the time being I accept that the husband has an actual income of between $5,000 and $6,000 per month. According to his most recent Form E, he has no other outgoings apart from the $2,000 per month deducted at source as maintenance for his child and $2,000 per month for his parents. Consequently the husband has between $1,000 and $2,000 per month surplus, although that amount probably varies. He also has to meet his own expenses, although at present it appears that rent and basic outgoings are provided for by his family. He is presently living with his parents and younger brother. In these circumstances, I will order that a further $500 per month be attached to the husband s income with the HKJC until payment has been made in full. That will be for over a period of 194 months. I am confident that he can afford to pay this sum and, in making this order, I am of course aware that his obligations to his parents should not take precedence over his

legal obligations to his child. As I have said above, I am also of the view that he has an earning capacity which far exceeds the HK$5,000 to HK$6,000 per month that he is presently earning. As the husband refused to negotiate or to make any reasonable offers, I will also order that the husband pay the wife s costs, the wife s own costs to be taxed in accordance with legal aid regulations. (S. D. Melloy) District Judge Ms D Chu of Legal Aid Department, for the Petitioner Respondent, in person, present

PAGE -

PAGE CRT4/17.12.2007/NB FCMC3907/2004/Judgment

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T U V &`#$ Normal.dot setup Microsoft Word 9.0 Judiciary Hong Kong SAR Title Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.