15 Feb 2023
No material change of circumstances so drastic and unforeseen was established between November 2020 and November 2021 to justify reducing the lump sum or overall maintenance; by the time of hearing respondent had regular employment and sufficient monthly surplus to meet the ordered instalments, therefore the variation application was dismissed and respondent held to the 2020 Consent Order.
1 Sept 2022
Leave to appeal was dismissed because there was no reasonable prospect of success: the trial judge's factual findings and evaluation that the Consent Order was lawfully agreed, that sole custody was working, and that no vitiating factors or material change justified variation fell within the permissible range of judgment; the social investigator's view that joint custody was "worth trying" did not override the need for finality in consent orders and did not demonstrate that varying the order was in the child's best interests; appellate interference was not warranted.
2 Jul 2021
The court found that, on its proper construction, the consent order of 19 December 2019 (and the subsequent agreed variation fixing monthly payments at HK$50,000) largely settled the children's maintenance matter and the limited proviso did not permit a lump sum award as compensation for alleged past shortfalls; accordingly the petitioner's application for backdating was dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondent.