11 Apr 2025
Leave to appeal was refused because the husband failed to demonstrate an arguable case with reasonable prospects of success and failed to show the judge's exercise of discretion was plainly wrong; the judge had considered and rejected the grounds as lacking merit and there was no special reason to depart from the usual approach to MPS appeals.
31 Dec 2024
The Court allowed the husband’s appeal, set aside the HK$1,200,000 LCP Order because the Family Court’s decision relied on incomplete and outdated financial disclosure and contained errors in assessing the wife's disposable income and expenses, rendering the LCP unjustified at that interim stage; the matter was remitted to the Family Court for rehearing before another judge with leave granted to adduce certain fresh documentary evidence (25 August 2023 correspondence), while the husband's parents' letter did not satisfy Ladd v Marshall and was refused as fresh evidence.
21 Oct 2024
After considering the Statement of Costs and the List of Objections, the court summarily assessed the costs at HK$1,140,000 and ordered payment forthwith.
16 Aug 2024
Leave to appeal was granted only on the discrete legal question of whether and how a pre-nuptial agreement should be considered in maintenance pending suit or interim maintenance where a Crossley application on the agreement's validity is pending because there is no appellate authority and the issue affects the future conduct of the case; all other grounds lacked reasonable prospects of success and a stay of execution was refused in absence of a proper application.
9 Aug 2024
Maintenance pending suit cannot be awarded for periods before the petition or after decree absolute; R1's MPS Summons was procedurally and substantively defective (no timely application before decree absolute, insufficient evidential proof of need, adult children not entitled after s18 declaration), and no very good or compelling reason existed to stay proceedings; therefore both the MPS and Stay Summons were dismissed and costs awarded to the Petitioner.
6 Aug 2024
The court accepted the petitioner father's current undertakings as reasonable; quantified additional interim reasonable needs of the mother and children at HK$447,432 per month; found the father has ability to make direct monetary contribution up to HK$250,000 per month in addition to the undertakings and that the mother has material resources (including annuity HK$65,000/month and approximately HK$16,000,000 held by the father); therefore the court ordered an equal sharing of interim reasonable needs, directing the father to pay HK$225,000 per month (HK$75,000 to the mother and HK$75,000 to…
31 Jul 2024
The court found the Respondent's pleaded expenses materially exaggerated, accepted adjusted reasonable expenditure figures largely along the Petitioner's proposals, found the Petitioner had means to pay interim maintenance (supported by his prior consent to pay RMB30,000), awarded maintenance pending suit for the Respondent at HK$11,000 per month and interim maintenance for the Eldest Son at HK$23,000 per month commencing 18 August 2024, refused to backdate payments, dismissed paragraph 4 of the Respondent's summons, discharged paragraph 1 of the 11 December 2023 order, and ordered costs nisi…
5 Jul 2024
Leave to appeal was refused because the Husband failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or any other reason in the interests of justice; the judge did not err in exercising broad discretionary evaluation of finances, including the Husbands ability to borrow and the reasonableness of the Wifes expenses, and no serious hardship was shown that would justify departing from the usual approach of leaving detailed assessment to ancillary relief.
7 May 2024
R1 breached a clear CMH Order to file and exchange a further updated Form E; because current financial disclosure is relevant to the MPS application and R1 failed to comply without merit, the court exercised case management powers to impose an unless order requiring filing within 28 days or dismissal of the MPS Summons, and ordered costs to P to be summarily assessed.
16 Feb 2024
The judge applied the statutory power under s.3 MPPO and the established interim maintenance principles: accepted the husband’s reasonable monthly needs (HK$130,000) and his current earnings (HK$30,000) producing a shortfall of ~HK$100,000, and found the wife has sufficient means such that an interim award should be made; on LCP the judge limited the quantum because the beneficial ownership/value of key assets was disputed and the SJE report reduced the valuation, so awarded a focused LCP to cover the imminent June 2024 preliminary trial (30% of claimed costs up to that hearing) resulting in…