16 May 2025
The summons was dismissed because the alleged change of circumstances was self‑induced by the respondent, his evidence lacked credibility, there was no new event invalidating the fundamental assumption of the consent order, and therefore no good and substantial cause to vary or discharge the lump sum instalments; costs and counsel certificate were awarded to the petitioner.
18 Oct 2024
Respondent's application to reduce/cease maintenance was dismissed because he failed to prove inability to pay and had concealed or delayed disclosure of substantial assets; Petitioner established a material change and prejudice from Respondent's conduct and was awarded limited additional maintenance and enforcement relief; costs awarded reflecting party conduct.
29 Jul 2024
Grant extension of time of 14 days to serve and file the Notice of Appeal because the petitioner’s delay was caused by a misunderstanding about the need for leave to appeal and there is a reasonably arguable ground that the judge erred by not first addressing the application to vary the consent order on payment of children’s school fees before considering committal.
10 May 2024
The Court held it has no power to vary the terms of a Consent Summons itself but may vary a Consent Order under s.11 MPPO; exercising that power the Court considered all circumstances (including pre-Order events) de novo, found Husband's inconsistent and obstructive conduct together with market decline frustrated the purpose of the Consent Order, and therefore varied the Consent Order to mandate updated valuations, expedited marketing, limited negotiation leeway (5% below updated market value), procedural steps for repeated valuations and sale, and an order for Husband to vacate within six mo…
3 Jul 2023
The court varied the 2020 order on the basis that the petitioner cannot reasonably obtain appropriate legal representation without further funding and that the respondent has the means to provide reasonable interim litigation funding and maintenance: litigation funding fixed at HK$120,000 per month from 1 October 2022; petitioner MPS set at HK$32,000 per month from 1 December 2022 to 31 March 2023 and HK$12,000 per month from 1 April 2023; interim maintenance for the child fixed at HK$42,000 per month from 1 December 2022; reasonable holiday and counselling costs included in the maintenance f…
7 Dec 2022
AIO granted. The respondent was in breach of the 2018 consent order, had a history of irregular and inadequate payments, and there were reasonable grounds to believe he would not make full and punctual payments; his proposal (attachment of HK$15,000) was unrealistically low and no feasible plan was advanced. The court exercised its discretion to secure arrears and ongoing payments by ordering specified deductions and set a summary assessed costs award of HK$212,885.85.
12 Aug 2022
The husband\'s variation summons was dismissed because he failed to establish a material decline in his ability to pay and engaged in material non-disclosure; the court therefore made a modest upward variation for the wife to HK$137,000 per month (CPI-linked, backdated to June 2020) and ordered direct payments to H of HK$23,000 per month (CPI-linked) while upholding the respondent\'s undertakings relating to the education fund and school/university fees (recitals J and N) but discharging specified ancillary undertakings (recitals F, H, K and part of L); costs were awarded to reflect the respo…
2 Jun 2022
The Court held the trial judge's variation was not plainly wrong: the judge's factual findings that both parents are caring, that the father's access was not the proven cause of the child's academic problems, and that recommendations of the social investigator and joint expert supported the arrangement placed the decision within the generous ambit of judicial discretion; travel/time difficulties asserted did not demonstrate harm to the child's welfare sufficient to justify interfering with the judge's order.
17 May 2022
The court held that a party may apply for a further interim order under section 7 Cap 481 notwithstanding an earlier consent order providing interim litigation funding; section 7 is wide enough to permit an interim lump sum; the applicant's immediate need and merits threshold were not shown to have diminished since the earlier interim order; accordingly a further interim lump sum for litigation funding was granted in part (HKD 3,350,000) with ancillary costs directions, and the court confirmed it had no power to vary or dismiss the Consent Order under Cap 481 s8.
8 Apr 2022
申請人未能提供可信且充分的證據證明在同意命令作出後發生了不可預見及實質的經濟惡化；稅單及銀行結單顯示過往年度收入並非持續低水平，且缺乏現任妻子或僱傭合約等關鍵證據支持其聲稱，法院因此不行使酌情權更改同意命令；故撤銷表格8申請並維持2017年5月31日同意命令，並判令申請人支付女方訟費。