The District Court dismissed a father’s application for leave to appeal in long-running guardianship and maintenance proceedings, and awarded costs to the mother.
The Court of Appeal refused a renewed application for leave to appeal against variation of maintenance pending suit, holding the proposed grounds lacked merit.
The court made the decree nisi absolute, despite unresolved ancillary relief and maintenance issues, after finding the child’s welfare arrangements were the best practicable.
The District Court dismissed the father’s bid for sole care and control, allowed the mother to relocate the child to Singapore, and made a section 18 declaration.
Court determined total net family assets at HK$5,953,809.23, rejected applicant's claim that HK$861,700 from her parents was a repayable debt (holding it to be gift/soft loan) and therefore excluded it from liabilities, applied the sharing principle but departed from equal split because applicant had higher future needs, greater contribution in childcare and respondent had greater earning capacity and pre-marital mainland asset; awarded applicant 55% (~HK$3,274,595) and ordered specific sale of the marital home with net payment of HK$3,150,000 to be paid to applicant via Legal Aid and other a…
The Family Court dismissed the husband’s bid to reduce or end spousal maintenance, found he had means to pay, and granted the wife limited additional maintenance and arrears relief.
Court found both parties have sufficient income to meet their needs; HK$360,000 withdrawals were held to be post-separation savings of the applicant and not matrimonial property for automatic sharing; although applicant had not been fully candid and adverse inferences were drawn, discretionary consideration of needs meant the HK$360,000 would not be used to satisfy either party's claims; respondent was found to have concealed some monthly savings estimated at HK$156,000 to be included in family asset calculation; MPF balances were discounted by 30%; on the overall assessment both maintenance…
Father failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or other public interest reasons for granting leave; the trial judges did not commit legal or principle errors in assessing interim maintenance or in exercising discretion over travel permission and their factual findings were supported by evidence, including mother's compliance in returning the child.
Source excerpt
Interim maintenance
Leave to appeal
Child travel permission
Recognition and enforcement of foreign/mainland judgments
The Family Court refused leave to appeal against a maintenance pending suit variation, holding the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.
The court granted interim maintenance for the petitioner and child, treated a disputed prenuptial agreement as one factor, and refused litigation funding.