20 Dec 2019
Court found husband had not given full and frank disclosure, drew adverse inferences and concluded he had ability to pay; assessed reasonable recurring monthly needs on a broad brush basis as HKD59,000 for wife and HKD51,000 for two children, ordered payments from 1 June 2018, and refused lump sum litigation funding because wife had deployable property assets and means to borrow/sell.
23 Oct 2019
Photographic evidence and the respondent's admission that he was the man in the photographs showing public intimate conduct established conduct beyond ordinary friendship; from the wife's perspective and applying the Livingstone‑Stallard test the respondent's conduct was unreasonable and made it impossible to expect the wife to live with him; other allegations (financial arrangements, parenting disputes) were not proved to the requisite standard to found the petition; accordingly the marriage was irretrievably broken and a decree nisi was granted.
2 Sept 2019
The Court of Appeal upheld the judge’s exercise of discretion under s10(2)(b): where a sole primary carer lacks resources and has limited earning capacity, a finite carer’s allowance directed to sustaining the carer’s ability to care for the children is lawful; on the facts the two‑year allowance was a reasonable, proportionate order and did not impermissibly amount to maintenance of a former partner.
20 Sept 2017
Court found the father's relocation application genuine and realistic, concluded that the parties cannot sustainably remain in Hong Kong given financial realities, and determined that overall best interests of the children favored relocation to Perth where the father's plan was more concrete, family support existed and costs were lower; accordingly granted leave for relocation with joint custody, mother having primary care and defined access to father, and imposed specific access, holiday, therapeutic and administrative orders to protect the children’s welfare and parental relationships.
26 Mar 2014
Leave to appeal and applications to amend were refused because the contested issues were fact-specific and not of great general or public importance, the 'or otherwise' ground was not engaged, new evidence was not properly disclosed or relied upon below, and procedural deficiencies in the notices of motion rendered the amendments and leave unjustified; costs ordered accordingly.
18 Dec 2013
The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the decree absolute because the wife established real financial prejudice: substantial disparity in outstanding undertakings and the realistic risk that the husband, once decree absolute were granted, would have no incentive to perform transfers abroad and would thereby defeat the wife’s entitlement; preservation orders were insufficient to eliminate that risk; decree absolute should only be granted upon compliance with the Consent Order or any variation of it.
15 Oct 2013
The court held that the wife is entitled to 50% of the costs of the appeal with a certificate for three counsel; the costs of the stay proceedings heard on 22 January and 27 February 2013 are costs in the cause and awarded to the wife at 50%; and the costs below remain undisturbed.
25 Jan 2013
Relocation refused and children ordered to remain in Hong Kong because the father's financial case and proposed plan were insufficiently realistic and undermined by his conduct (purchase of farm), the social welfare and Official Solicitor reports and the children's expressed wishes (notably B's strong opposition) established that remaining in Hong Kong best served the individual welfare of each child; joint custody granted with care and control to the mother and reasonable access to the father.
7 Jun 2010
The Court of Appeal held that under Hong Kong law conduct will be taken into account only if it meets the "gross and obvious" standard and that the judge erred in treating the husband's post-expiry refusal to sell as conduct justifying departure from equal sharing because the offers at the relevant prices arose after the Consent Order's six month period had expired; accordingly the additional $1.5m uplift and the Hoi Tan related order were unjustified and set aside, and the primary order was amended (payment reduced from $2.7m to $1.2m and deletion of the $0.4m provision).
10 Apr 1996
The judge erred in failing to have regard to the husbands needs under s.7 MPPO; accordingly the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part and varied the order so that the wife retains transfer of the matrimonial home but must pay the husband $75,000 upon sale of the home or upon his release, whichever is earlier, and the husbands personal effects are to be handed to his sister.