The Court of First Instance varied a child maintenance order in part, allowing direct payments to adult or near-adult children studying in the US, subject to a rental deduction.
The court held the matrimonial partnership ran from about 2000 (start of cohabitation) to agreed separation on 26 September 2006; most of the husband's lump‑sum retirement received in 2020 was accumulated after separation and is non‑matrimonial except an identified matrimonial portion (HK$3,160,571 adjusted to HK$1,580,285.50 allocated to each party under sharing); the Hiu On Yuen property and part of the husband's cash and other family assets form the matrimonial pool; a renovation payment of HK$750,000 was added back to the pool; applying the sharing principle with appropriate allocations p…
Applying the broad‑brush approach the court balanced the parties' incomes and reasonable child needs, concluded the respondent was in financial difficulty and not the beneficiary of indefinite third‑party support, but could pay a sum higher than HKD 5,500; fixing interim child maintenance at 20% of respondent's monthly salary (HKD 6,266) together with applicant's available funds provides a fair maintenance budget until final hearing.
Applying the broad‑brush approach the court compared the parties' disclosed budgets and incomes, found the applicant has obtained employment and can meet her own needs, while the respondent's income and housing commitments limit his disposable income; the respondent must reallocate expenditure and can reasonably be ordered to pay HKD10,000 per month for the two children but not spousal maintenance pending suit; respondent must pay applicant's costs provisionally.
The application for leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds merely repeated matters already considered at trial, did not demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success, fresh evidence criteria were not met, and the trial judge's factual findings and the order directing sale proceeds to be held for periodic child maintenance were neither plainly wrong nor unfair; accordingly leave to appeal was denied and costs awarded to the respondent.
District Court interim maintenance decision fixing support for three children, addressing school fees, a bourse application, costs, and declining backdating and litigation funding.
The court applied the established rough‑calculation approach for maintenance pending suit: it assessed the children's reasonable monthly needs, excluded unsupported or unreasonable items, relied on respondent's prior net income as indicative of capacity, and concluded respondent could pay. The court denied the applicant's personal interim maintenance and awarded interim child maintenance of HK$9,000 per month (HK$3,000 per child) from 7 December 2019, until further order.
Applicant failed to prove a material and unforeseeable deterioration in his financial position; the court accepted that applicant could access rental proceeds and had a monthly income of at least HK$46,000; therefore it would be unjust to discharge undertakings or vary the consent order; the application to change the consent order is dismissed and costs awarded to respondent.