范對蕭

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 · Cites 2 cases

Case No.FCMC 13353/2013

Court

Family Court

Date11 Dec 2015

Judge區域法院暫委法官彭家光

Case Document

100%Judiciary

FCMC 13353 / 2013

香港特別行政區

區域法院

婚姻訴訟案件編號 2013年第 13353 宗

————————————————

	范	呈請人
及
	蕭	答辯人

————————————————

主審法官 : 區域法院暫委法官彭家光內庭聆訊(非公開)

聆訊日期 : 2015年12月11日

判決日期 : 2015年12月11日

判案書日期 : 2015年12月31日

-------------------------

判案書
(更改候訊期間贍養費)

-------------------------

1.在本判案書內，本席簡稱呈請人為「女方」，答辯人為「男方」。

2.這是一個有關在2014年8月7日男方以傳票申請，要求下調候訊期間贍養費的審訊。男方的申請是這樣寫的：

“Apply for a downward variation in respect of the maintenance pending suit made by the Respondent to the Petitioner. I propose:

a. in the sum of HK$2,500.00 per month to the Petitioner as her maintenance pending suit.

b. in the sum of HK$2,500.00 per month to the Petitioner as the maintenance of the child of the family pending suit.

c. The property at House No. 2, Coronado Ave. Royal Palm, Phase A, Yuen Long, N.T. be sold as soon as possible so as to pay maintenance pending suit to the Petitioner.”

3.經審訊後，本席頒令撤銷男方的申請，並告訴他法庭會儘快頒下判案書。以下是本席之判決理由。

背景

4.男方現年約50歲，他是一名商人、女方現年約37歲。2000年訴訟雙方在香港認識，在同年開始同居關係，在深圳居住。

5.2000年2月雙方在香港結婚。婚後女方為家庭主婦，在深圳和香港兩地生活。2003年中雙方申請移民美國。2003年9月雙方誕下一名兒子（後稱「兒子」）。2003年9月雙方持移民簽證入境美國，但到境後不久便一起返回香港。2005年初女方獨自到美國居留。由2005年初至2011年3月期間，每年女方會有約一半時間在美國居留，女方稱之為坐「移民監」。2011年3月雙方取得美國永久居民資格。

6.2011年4月女方返回香港居住。由2005年初至2011年4月期間，雙方將兒子交託由親戚照顧。2011年4月以後，雙方和兒子在男方名下位於元朗加州豪園的住宅單位（下稱為「加州豪園」）（即男方2014年8月7日的傳票其中所述的物業）居住。2011年7月男方從加州豪園搬走。

7.2011年7月27日女方以分居為理由，在FCMC 10251/2011案下提出離婚呈請。對於女方指稱雙方自2005年1月分居，男方卻不同意，他認為雙方在2011年7月才開始分居。2011年8月男方以加州豪園進行裝修工程為理由，安排女方和兒子從加州豪園搬走另租地方居住。男方其後將加州豪園租出。

8.2012年4月10日在男方缺席、也男方並未將他的表格E存檔的情況下，區域法院暫委法官嚴舜儀頒令男方須付女方和兒子中期候訊期間贍養費每月共45,000元。2012年8月23日女方以傳票提出申請要求上調候訊期間贍養費的金額。2012年9月4日男方將表格E存檔，在內他要求下調候訊期間贍養費的金額至25,000元。

9.2013年6月21日法庭就訴訟雙方的要求舉行審訊。經審訊後，2013年6月28日本席頒下判案書命令男方須付女方候訊期間贍養費每月52,310元，首期在2013年4月1日支付。

10.2013年9月女方在本案下提出以雙方自2011年7月分居為理由提出離婚呈請。2014年1月3日法庭頒下暫准離婚令。應雙方同意，2014年3月18日法庭將兒子的管養權、照顧和管束權頒予女方，男方有合理探視權。

11.男方並沒依期付候訊期間贍養費。2014年6月10日女方發出判決傳票。2014年8月7日男方提出本申請，要求將候訊期間贍養費下調為他只須付女方和兒子各人每月2,500元，即共每月5,000元。女方的判決傳票的法律程序仍在進行中。

12.2014年12月10日本席頒令將以下列為就附屬濟助事宜須優先處理的爭論點，這就是有關女方名下一個位於中國鄭州鄭東新區金水東路的住宅單位（後稱「金水東路」）的實益權益是否由女方所擁有，還是她只是以受託人的身份代其父親持有該財產。

13.同日，法庭也頒令下列為本訟案之附屬濟助事宜須優先處理的爭論點：

(i) 男方名下的3,900股Kingsway Int’l Corporation Limited的股份的實益權益是否由他所擁有，還是他只是以受託人的身份代其兄長所持有；及

(ii) 男方名下位於國內的物業即“中國廣東省中山市板芙鎮湖洲村板芙北路164號至166號”的的實益權益是否由他所擁有，還是他只是以受託人的身份代其兄長所持有。

14.法庭在2015年9月16至17日、10月19日就金水東路的實益權益的爭論舉行審訊。經審訊後，2015年11月13日本席頒下判案書裁定女方只是以受託人的身份代其父親持有該財產。

證據

15.就本申請，男方只提交了一頁紙誓章證供，內容如下：

“I got no money to pay to my wife because my company didn’t pay my salary. Also I already borrow a lot from my brother or personal loan from bank. But I cannot borrow or apply for more anymore. I already thought of many ways to find money. I already did my best.”

16.女方並沒有就本申請提交任何誓章證據。

本席的看法

17.男方現時的申請是要求法庭將日期為2013年6月28日的贍養費命令作出更改。根據香港法例第192章《婚姻法律程序與財產條例》第11(1)條，法庭有權就定期付款令作出更改或解除。

18.法庭在行使法例所授予的權力時，須顧及案件的所有情況，包括法庭在作出與申請有關的命令時須予顧及的任何事項的任何轉變。這些事項包括雙方的行為和在《婚姻法律程序與財產條例》第7條中指出的各項事宜。上訴庭法官張澤佑在AEM v VFM [2008] 3 HKLRD 36 案中指出（見判詞第14段），法庭在處理此類申請而行使法例所授予的權力時不應受到任何限制，法庭應考慮雙方目前的經濟情況，並重新以目前的情況為基礎來考慮有關申請，最終目標是要取得一個對雙方公平、公正的結果。

19.當然，法庭在考慮一方提出的申請時，同時需要顧及原先的命令，不會隨便將之更改。上訴法庭副庭長鄧國楨（當時官階）曾在HCTT v TYYC [2008] HKFLR 286 案中指出（見判詞第16段），除非情況有實質上或重大的轉變，法庭一般是不會更改之前所作出的命令。

20.基於上述法律原則來考慮，本席認為本案的關鍵為：

（1）女方的經濟狀況，這包括她的經濟能力，同時顧及她的資產和收入，和她的經濟需要。

（2）男方的經濟狀況，這包括男方的經濟能力，同時顧及他的資產和收入，和男方的經濟需要。

（3）在2013年6月28日的命令作出以後，與訟雙方的經濟狀況和需要是否發生了重大的轉變，這些轉變是否是在該命令作出時是可以預料到的。

（4）在考慮全部因素以後法庭應作出一個怎樣的命令。

女方的經濟能力、需要

21.在2013年6月28日的判案書中，在考慮女方的經濟狀況以後，本席裁決就候訊期間贍養費目的，女方和兒子的合理需要為每月52,310元（見判案書第57段），本席也接受女方並無隱瞞的資產或收入（見判案書第58至60段）。從男方的申請書（見上文第2段）和支持誓章（見上文第15段）看來，男方並非質疑上述裁決。

男方的經濟能力、需要

22.男方就本申請的主要理據，在他說他並無經濟能力付候訊期間贍養費52,310元。他在支持誓章中列出3點理由：

(i) 他的僱主並沒有支付他的薪金；

(ii) 他無法再向其兄長或銀行借款；

(iii) 他已想盡辦法，但仍無法應付。

23.就男方支付候訊期間贍養費的能力，本席在2013年6月28日判案書的裁決是：

62.   The husband’s financial position was set out in his Form E and his three answers to questionnaires.

63.   The husband said he was not a person of substantial wealth, his only income being a fixed monthly salary at the rate of $25,000 for 2010 and 2011, and $30,000 for 2012 from his employer K Ltd. Although the husband is the registered holder of 39% shareholding of K Ltd., he said he has been holding the company shares as nominee for a brother. As to the interim MPS in the sum $45,000, he said he has been made to pay what he cannot afford to pay and has resorted to his depleting savings and, having exhausted his savings, obtaining loans. His current monthly expenses are $114,647, inclusive of the interim MPS of $45,000 per month, which is well beyond his alleged monthly income, and this does not include any personal or monthly mortgage loan repayment.

64.   The husband said he used the sale proceeds of his previously owned property in Kowloon to pay the down payment in the sum of $1,099,860 for the purchase of Royal Palms property in 1996. His late mother paid the mortgage repayment for him before she passed away in 2006. Thereafter, he used his savings (including the proceeds of sale from the said Kowloon property) to make the monthly mortgage repayment. In 2007, the husband arranged a re-finance of the Royal Palms property and obtained approximately $2.45 million to finance the subsequent mortgage repayments. Later on, as his financial position became worse, he borrowed money from banks and K Ltd to meet the mortgage repayment and his expenses.

65.   For the period from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012, he borrowed $1,836,626.97 from K Ltd. From 1 April 2012 to 31 August 2012, he borrowed a further $525,127, making a total of $2,362,753.97. It appears that the husband’s drawings from K Ltd are regularly made.

66.   In the husband’s answers dated 22 February 2013 to the wife’s questionnaire, he said his friend WSH usually paid for some of his expenses and later he would withdraw funds to reimburse her out of his Bank of China account. During the period from about January 2010 to July 2011, the average monthly withdrawal was around $85,000.

67.   The husband has been able to afford a standard of living way over the affordability of his alleged monthly income for the parties since 2004. That whether he has the means to pay, he can borrow or he has made arrangements with his family or family business to pay for it is another issue that will be left to be sorted out at the substantive hearing of the question of ancillary reliefs. Still, there has not been any significant change in the financial circumstances of the husband since the separation of the parties. The way I see it, there is no reason why the husband should not continue to provide, as MPS, the wife and the child a standard of living comparable to what they have had since marriage.

68.   It is trite that resources may include the husband’s ability to provide funds by overdrafts or through loans for the purpose of MPS provisions.

69.   Altogether, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the husband is able to pay the said sum of $52,310 per month (see para [57] above) as MPS.

70.   The issue on the husband’s financial resources has remained a continuing source of disputes throughout these proceedings. The wife said the husband is a very rich man owing landed properties in the PRC and substantial shareholdings of a thriving family business of sports accessories that was left by his late father and has been operated through K Ltd and other companies of the same group. Time will tell whether the wife is correct. Yet again, I should leave the issue to be sorted out at the substantive hearing.

24.男方在本申請所說他只是替其兄長打工、現月薪30,000元、他名下持有位於國內的土地、和公司的股份、他只是以受託人身分代其兄長持有、他作為打工仔實在無法再向其兄長借款、也無能力再向銀行舉債諸般說法，在前述的候訊期間贍養費審訊中，他已經說過，現在不外是舊調重彈。對於他的說法，女方是反對的。她認為男方是其名下之土地和公司股份之實益權益擁有人，訴訟雙方在這方面的爭議是未有定論的。但她指出雖然多年來男方都是以僱員身份來報稅，不論他填報是月入25,000元或3萬元，一直以來他們的家庭住豪宅、開車、有傭人幫忙家務，她認為由此可見男方的實際收入應遠超過每月25,000元或3萬元。在這方面，本席維持在2013年6月28日判案書中的裁決（見上文第23段），依然相信男方是有能力付候訊期間贍養費每月52,310元的。

25.但現在男方有一個新的說法，這是他不但無法再向公司借款，公司現在每月只支薪5,000元給他，把其餘扣起25,000元用來清還他欠公司的欠款。

26.《僱傭條例》（香港法例第57章）第32條對僱主扣除工資作出了限制。按其規定，除非已經得到僱員的書面同意，否則僱主不可從該僱員的工資中扣回已借給他的貸款，否則僱主會被視為欠薪，而欠薪是嚴重的過犯，僱主有可能會因此被判入獄。所以男方所說的情況是不應該發生的，除非他書面同意他的僱主（按他說他的僱主是其兄長、但按女方所說他自己更是東主之一）這樣做，但若果說男方明知他有法律責任須每月付候訊期間贍養費52,310元的情況下，居然書面同意僱主扣薪，本席認為這是完全不可以接受的行為。

27.經小心考慮後，本席認為男方在支持誓章中所說的理由都不能成立。本席也看不到在2013年6月28日的命令作出後，與訟雙方的經濟狀況發生了重大的、又不可以預料的轉變。

28.男方建議儘快將加州豪園出售。聆訊時，女方也表明她不反對男方以市價將加州豪園出售。本席希望雙方能積極地跟進這個建議。

頒令

29.男方日期為2014年8月7日的傳票申請撤銷。

30.本席不厭其煩的在此再說一遍。候訊期間贍養費，顧名思義，只是一個過渡性質的中間安排。就這些申請而言，法庭只是會就所有情況作一個概況的審視，在繼續的法律程序裡雙方會有機會再就訴訟雙方分別的經濟狀況作出提問，和提交更多誓章、證人供詞，和文件證明，正式審訊附屬濟助申請時，他們也會有在庭上作供和盤問對方的機會，法庭會在顧及所有這些新的誓章、證人供詞，證明文件作供，盤問的內容後，就雙方的經濟狀況作出種種事實的裁定，若在考慮到這些裁定後法庭認為有需要的話，是可以就候訊期間贍養費的命令作出「多除少補」的調整的。

31.男方的申請失敗，本席打算就本申請頒令男方須付女方的訟費（包括所有保留訟費），若雙方未能就訟費的金額達成協議，將來由法庭評定。以上的訟費命令是一個暫准命令，如雙方在本命令頒布後14天內沒有任何申請，暫准命令將轉為絕對命令。