Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

School fees

  • 20 Sept 2021

    YCKS v. MPKC

    Citation
    [2021] HKCA 1350
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAMP97/2021

    Leave to appeal was granted for specified grounds where delay and identified errors (notably alleged double‑counting of children’s maintenance and unclear aspects of the wife’s maintenance) gave reasonable prospects of success and weakened the trial judge’s advantage; leave was refused for procedural grounds where no timely interlocutory applications were made or no prejudice shown; recusal and bare allegations of bias were rejected; one ground (ESF assistance) was reserved pending provision of transcript.

  • 8 Jun 2021

    R, E also known as M, E v. P, OPM also known as P M, OPR

    Citation
    [2021] HKFC 115
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC1658/2020

    On a broad-brush assessment the court fixed interim maintenance for the three children at HK$7,350 per child per month (to be paid by the Respondent), having apportioned household and direct childrens expenses, treated parents as equally responsible for childrens general and direct expenses, and directed the Respondent to remain responsible for school fees pending further order and to apply for a bourse; backdating and litigation funding were not ordered now.

  • 9 Apr 2018

    DCB v. AB

    Citation
    [2018] HKCFI 717
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP2173/2014

    The Father failed to establish any material misrepresentation or incapacity to pay that would justify a downward variation; the Mother's income disclosure was adequate and the husband's income and the value of the Mother's sole proprietorship were not relevant to the interim maintenance apportionment; the Father had given an undertaking to pay nursery/school fees and is liable for outstanding fees of HK$60,630, payable within 14 days with judgment interest thereafter.

  • 19 Aug 2016

    CWYW v. CCH

    Citation
    CWYW v. CCH
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP124/2013

    Applying s10(2) GMO with guidance from English authorities (notably Re P), the court discounted exaggerated and unsupported claims, assessed the respondent\u2019s standard of living as affluent but not opulent, took into account the applicant\u2019s resources and credibility, denied a separate carer\u2019s allowance, limited ancillary claims (one domestic helper, no cordyceps, no private club rental, no life insurance order) and ordered monthly periodical payments of HK$140,000 and specified lump sums for home setup and car, with backdating and undertakings for medical and educational payment…

  • 2 Sept 2014

    SKP v. SAFM

    Citation
    SKP v. SAFM
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC5731/2010

    The child's actual monthly expenses were found to be about HK$47,533, yielding an equal parental share of approximately HK$23,766. Court rounded the father's maintenance obligation up to HK$24,000 per month and backdated the increase to 1 May 2013 given the change in practical arrangements after the father's relocation. Parties were released from the paragraph R consultation/50:50 undertakings and replaced with a fixed capitalised annual contribution by the father of HK$35,000 to cover extracurricular activities, extra tuition, school camps and trips, with all payments increased by 1% per ann…

  • 18 Sept 2013

    IISW v. SDS-W

    Citation
    IISW v. SDS-W
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC1399/2006

    The court discharged the wife's undertaking, ordered the husband to pay a lump sum of HK$1,330,490 for the children's school fees from September 2009 to July 2013, directed that the husband is responsible for ongoing school fees with annual payments to commence September 2013 (first due 1 October 2013 for that year, then by 1 August in subsequent years), indicated the charging order nisi should be made absolute with net sale proceeds first applied to the lump sum and any remainder paid into court, adjourned finalisation of the charging order to 5 December 2013 (wife to file any summons by tha…

  • 19 Sept 1997

    SUSAN CAROLINE BERRY v. WILLIAM ALLAN

    Citation
    SUSAN CAROLINE BERRY v. WILLIAM ALLAN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMC6/1995

    Although the applications should ordinarily have been inter partes, the immediate risk of foreclosure and loss of family assets justified making interim ex parte orders: the court permitted release of funds held in court equivalent to GBP15,400 to Lloyds to liquidate mortgage arrears, ordered rental payments for the Leicester property to be paid into its mortgage account and disclosure of tenancy agreements, dismissed the ex parte school fees order for lack of urgency, and awarded costs to Respondent except as to the school fees application and the Respondent's initial appearance.