11 Feb 2025
No material change of circumstances was shown within the brief interval after the Master’s December 2023 order; the court gave decisive weight to the social welfare reports and the daughter's expressed wish to limit contact while preparing for DSE; the mother's absence at the Master’s hearing was not credibly explained; accordingly the variation was refused and the Master’s order was not disturbed.
16 Jan 2025
The applicant misconstrued the earlier Court of Appeal judgment: the court refused leave, revoked the applicant's summons and only made an order as to costs; the 31 December 2024 summons seeking to vary the judgment was misconceived and is revoked; the costs order assessed at HK$9,500 remains in force as a final order and no further costs are awarded.
28 Feb 2023
The Nisi Order was not varied because considering the results before the Master and on appeal neither party was wholly successful; the Nisi Order appropriately reflected the overall distribution of success and should therefore remain absolute; P1 must bear the costs of the variation application, to be taxed if not agreed, with summary on-paper taxation and directed timelines.
8 Sept 2021
A defendant who previously held substantial assets and now claims impecuniosity to vary a financial condition for leave to defend must give full and frank disclosure including the disposition of prior assets; failure to do so permits refusal of the variation and renders an appeal without reasonable prospects of success.
4 Jun 2020
The variation summons was a necessary, continuous and integrated response to the defendant’s failure to include the Security for Costs Summons in its dismissal request and to the defendant’s opposition to variation; the court rejected the contention that the summons was an abuse or taken solely to force costs and ordered the defendant to pay the costs of the variation summons and the Consent Summons on a party and party basis to be taxed if not agreed.
9 Apr 2018
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.
6 Jun 2017
The application to vary the 12 May 2017 order was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a distinct case against the 1st defendant or to quantify monetary loss required to establish the likelihood of a money judgment for a Mareva injunction; the alleged conflict of interest was insufficient to sustain freezing relief, so the 12 May order stands.
4 Apr 2014
On an interim, broad‑brush assessment the child’s reasonable monthly needs were found to be at least HK$15,000 and, given the husband’s lifestyle evidence, access to company profits and the husband’s inadequate disclosure (permitting robust adverse inferences and inference of continuing third‑party support), the respondent had the means to meet HK$15,000/month; accordingly the interim maintenance order was varied to HK$15,000/month.
12 Dec 2012
Para 7 of the 1999 consent order did not obligate Choi to pay all overseas education and living expenses beyond the capped contributions specified in paras 7(a) and 7(d) (10% of his personal income as evidenced by tax assessments); paras 4 and 7 are cumulative not alternative; accordingly the Judge's orders based on an unlimited reading of para 7 were set aside and replaced with an order that Choi pay maintenance arrears of HK$124,109.13 with interest at 8% per annum; the variation to para 4 was upheld; procedural criticisms of the judgment summons process warrant caution but did not require…
23 Jul 2010
On summary assessment the court fixed the hourly rate for Lianjun Li at HK$3,500, allowed Fang Wang at HK$2,500 and Qin Mu at HK$1,300, allowed specified communications and professional work items as closely connected to the committal application and variation application, allowed counsel's fee for Mr Douglas Lam, disallowed preparation of the Statement of Costs and the fee for Ms Sabrina Ho, and assessed the plaintiff's recoverable costs at HK$76,146.