Read the full judgment text of FCMC 13353/2013 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment was delivered on 11 December 2015 before 區域法院暫委法官彭家光.
Family law – maintenance pending suit – variation of order – material change in circumstances – financial hardship – Employment Ordinance – application dismissed – costs reserved. The Respondent applied to reduce maintenance pending suit from $52,310 to $5,000 per month claiming inability to pay due to salary deductions and maxed loans. The court held no material change in circumstances since the 2013 order. The Respondent's claim of salary deduction without written consent was contrary to the Employment Ordinance. The court found the Respondent still able to pay the original amount. Application dismissed. Costs reserved to Petitioner. The court emphasized that maintenance pending suit is a transitional arrangement and substantive ancillary relief will be determined later. The Respondent's financial situation had not materially changed since the previous order. The court maintained the finding that the Respondent had the means to pay the maintenance. The court noted the Respondent's previous financial disclosures and the lack of evidence supporting the new claim of inability to pay. The court also highlighted the legal implications of unauthorized salary deductions under the Employment Ordinance. The court encouraged the parties to proceed with the sale of the property to meet maintenance obligations. The court reserved the costs order to be absolute if no application was made within 14 days. The court reiterated that the substantive hearing would address the full financial picture. The court dismissed the application for variation of maintenance pending suit. The court upheld the previous order of $52,310 per month. The court found the Respondent's evidence insufficient to justify a reduction. The court noted the Respondent's previous ability to pay and the lack of new evidence. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the standard of living for the Petitioner and child. The court dismissed the Respondent's claim of financial hardship. The court found the Respondent's financial position had not changed materially. The court upheld the previous order of maintenance pending suit. The court noted the Respondent's previous financial disclosures and the lack of evidence supporting the new claim of inability to pay. The court also highlighted the legal implications of unauthorized salary deductions under the Employment Ordinance. The court encouraged the parties to proceed with the sale of the property to meet maintenance obligations. The court reserved the costs order to be absolute if no application was made within 14 days. The court reiterated that the substantive hearing would address the full financial picture. The court dismissed the application for variation of maintenance pending suit. The court upheld the previous order of $52,310 per month. The court found the Respondent's evidence insufficient to justify a reduction. The court noted the Respondent's previous ability to pay and the lack of new evidence. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the standard of living for the Petitioner and child. The court dismissed the Respondent's claim of financial hardship. The court found the Respondent's financial position had not changed materially. The court upheld the previous order of maintenance pending suit.
Legal issues: Variation of maintenance pending suit
Outcome: Application dismissed. Maintenance pending suit order of $52,310 per month remains in force.
Cited by 1 case