17 Aug 2023
The judge held that on the material before the court a fair-minded and informed observer would not conclude there was a real possibility of bias; prior adverse findings and reference to occupation were factually based and not indicative of bias; the Hadkinson exercise was justified to prevent abuse of process; the recusal summons was dismissed and costs awarded to the mother.
13 Jan 2023
Because the Court of Appeal dismissed applications for leave and the parties entered a 2022 consent settlement in which the respondent paid HK$1,995,783 in full and final settlement and the petitioner agreed to withdraw enforcement, the second AIO was effectively resolved by settlement; accordingly the court exercised its discretion to stay the second AIO until further order (and noted that an application for leave to appeal alone does not stay execution).
20 Sept 2022
The application for leave to appeal out of time was dismissed because it was a repetition of a previously dismissed application amounting to re-litigation and abuse of process; the Respondent failed to justify delay, the new ground could have been raised earlier and the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success; accordingly leave was refused and costs awarded.
29 Oct 2021
Although adverse findings were made regarding the Father’s disclosure and reservations existed about the Mother’s evidence, both parties’ applications to vary maintenance were dismissed and no party was substantially the overall winner; having weighed conduct, disclosure, financial circumstances and the objectives in O.1A r.1 RHC, the court exercised its discretion to refuse the Mother’s application to vary the Costs Order Nisi and to make no order as to costs (costs order nisi), to be made absolute within 14 days.
10 Jun 2021
The Wife was not the overall successful party because she obtained only a limited consent settlement on behalf of the daughter (one year of maintenance) and received nothing for her own lifelong maintenance claim; the Husband had in substance discharged his obligations under the 2013 maintenance order and had limited means; on balance it was fair to order no order as to costs. Accordingly the court ordered no order as to costs (including all reserved costs) and directed that the Petitioner's costs be taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulations with certificate for counsel.
3 Dec 2020
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the father failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success on any ground: the matters relied on (COVID-19 and 2020 economic crisis) were not before the trial in 2019 and, if material change exists, should be pursued by fresh application; the judge reasonably found the mother unlikely to make meaningful financial contribution; the father deliberately failed to make full and frank disclosure permitting adverse inference and supporting the maintenance assessment at $52,000 per month; the $100,000 relocation lump sum was a fair esti…
3 Nov 2020
Although there was no single clear overall winner, the court exercised its wide discretion to make the costs order nisi absolute in favour of the mother because the father had unilaterally breached the consent order (notably reducing maintenance), the mother's offers were more reasonable, and the vast disparity in financial capacity meant awarding costs to the mother better protected the child's welfare.
11 Jun 2020
The wife’s application for litigation funding was dismissed because she had deployable assets and had transferred substantial funds offshore during the divorce process (demonstrating availability of resources), so she did not satisfy the Currey criteria; the husband’s variation application was dismissed because his asserted loss of means and inability to borrow were not supported by adequate evidence and the court concluded he retained resources or access to borrowing and therefore could continue to meet the MPS Order; accordingly the original MPS Order stands.
6 Mar 2020
The court found a material unforeseen reduction in the husband's earning capacity since the 2015 consent order and accordingly discharged the rental undertaking with effect from August 2019, varied the periodical maintenance (reducing and backdating the wife's maintenance to HK$14,700 per month from August 2019 to September 2020 and discharging thereafter), discharged child maintenance at dates tied to commencement of university subject to undertakings from the husband to pay direct allowances (or alternatively ordered HK$11,000 per month each if no undertakings), ordered the husband to pay t…
3 Aug 2018
There has been a material change in circumstances. The court suspended paragraph 1 of the 30 July 2014 maintenance order from April 2016 to December 2017, varied ongoing child maintenance to HKD5,800 per month from 1 October 2016, ordered respondent to repay arrears of HKD46,400 (Jan–Aug 2018) by 24 monthly instalments, dismissed the petitioner's application for an increase, dismissed the respondent's refund and damages applications, and apportioned costs as ordered.