9 May 2013
The court confirmed the 26 May 2010 order and dismissed the husband's variation application because evidence showed the husband had means to meet maintenance obligations until April 2010 and could have used other financial resources thereafter; the ordered sums were minimal and the wife's lack of means and the children's needs justified confirmation under Cap.188 s.8/10 and Cap.192 s.11(7).
9 May 2013
The court confirmed the 26 May 2010 order because on the evidence the husband had the means to pay maintenance until April 2010 and from other resources until August 2010; the sums ordered are modest and there are no grounds to vary them, so the husband's application to vary is dismissed and the original maintenance orders are confirmed.
27 Dec 2007
The court held that it is not confined to considering only those defences certified by the foreign magistrate and must proceed as if a domestic application for maintenance had been made, applying Hong Kong procedures and principles; applying those principles and findings on credibility and means, the court confirmed the UK provisional order modified to commence 3 January 2006 and fixed the maintenance at £500 per month, with costs payable by the Respondent.