Cwk v. Ychs and Another
Read the full judgment text of FCMC 6082/2014 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment was delivered on 10 December 2015 before Deputy District Judge G. Own.
Maintenance Pending Suit – Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance – Reasonableness – Standard of Living – Capital Rebalancing – Costs – Petitioner sought maintenance pending suit of HK$70,000 per month against 1st Respondent Husband – Court held maintenance pending suit should be reasonable considering standard of living and ability to pay – Established pattern of payment of HK$70,000 monthly salary deposit found to constitute maintenance – Court awarded HK$60,000 per month commencing 15 December 2015 – No backdating granted as no immediate need found – Claim for reinstatement of American Express Centurion Supplementary Card dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction – Costs awarded to Petitioner following normal rule – Certificate for Senior Counsel granted.
Legal issues: Reasonableness of Maintenance Pending Suit Amount · Nature of Past Payments as Maintenance · Backdating of Maintenance Pending Suit · Jurisdiction to Reinstatement of AE Card · Costs Order
Outcome: Maintenance pending suit granted at HK$60,000 per month; AE Card reinstatement claim dismissed; Costs awarded to Petitioner.
Cites 2 cases
|
FCMC 6082 /2014 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION MATRIMONIAL CAUSES NO. 6082 OF 2014 ----------------------------
----------------------------
------------------------- D E C I S I O N ------------------------- Introduction 1.This is an application by the Petitioner (“Wife”) by way of her summons dated 28 April 2015 seeking maintenance pending suit against the 1st Respondent (“Husband”) backdated to 1st June 2014. The amount sought is HK$70,000 a month. In addition, the Wife also seeks reinstatement of her American Express Centurion Supplementary card (“AE Card”) which was cancelled by the 1st Respondent without her knowledge. 2.There is no application for litigation funding by the Wife. 3.The Wife was represented by Miss Anita Yip, S.C., leading Miss Christina Tseng. The 1st Respondent was represented by Mr. Robert Pang, S.C., leading Mr Eugene Yim for this hearing. Background 4.One day before this hearing, this Court handed down its Decision on the Wife’s application for an extended period of discovery of financial documents against the Husband where I have set out the background of the parties. Hence, I do not intend to repeat what had already been set out save and in so far as it is necessary for this Decision. 5.The parties were married in 1987 and, despite numerous artificial fertility treatments over the years, no child was born out of this 27-year marriage. The Wife filed her Petition in May 2014 relying on the fact of ‘Unreasonable Behaviour’ of the Husband. Decree Nisi was granted in August 2014. 6.Suffice to say that when the parties married in 1987, the Husband was a site foreman and the Wife was a bank teller. Shortly after the marriage, the Wife used her savings and purchased a property at Riviera Gardens under her sole name at a consideration of HK$374,000 (“1st Riviera property”). On 2 November 1988, the Wife added the Husband’s name to the title of the 1st Riviera property as joint tenants. The gross area of this property is about 529 sq. ft. Then, the parties moved out from the Husband’s mother’s place where they had resided after married to this 1st Riviera property as their first matrimonial home. 7.Around 1991, the Husband set up a sole proprietorship business under the name HF Engineering Company (“HF”) and started his own business taking up construction projects. Since the Husband was only educated up to Form 3 level, the Wife handled all the administrative work after her working hours. The Husband’s business was mainly contractor doing maintenance, repair and renovation work for various government infrastructures. 8.In 1993, the Husband incorporated his company as a limited company, namely, HF Construction Engineering Co. Ltd., with himself holding 60% shareholding and the Wife holding the remaining 40%. The Wife’s role of handling administrative work for the Husband continued and remained unchanged. The Husband’s business became profitable and his career started to take off. 9.Around 1995, the parties bought another property also at Riviera Gardens which was about 829 sq. ft (“2nd Riviera property”) where they moved in. The earlier and smaller 1st Riviera property was then leased to the Wife’s elder sister. 10.In August 1996, upon discussion with the Husband, the Wife resigned from her full time employment when she was at that time already an assistant branch bank manager. Since then she became a full time housewife. The Wife assisted the Husband in his business development and tried to get pregnant which sadly to no avail. 11.In 1998, the Husband’s business became lucrative. The parties bought a property at Symphony Bay, Sai Kung, New Territories, at the price of HK$6,504,100 together with a car parking space at the price of HK$500,000. This property had 4 bedrooms and the gross area was about 1,180 square feet including one storage room. In June 1999, the parties sold the 2nd Riviera property for HK$2,775,000. 12.In 2001, the Husband made a confession to the Wife that he had had an extra marital affair with the 2nd Respondent who was already pregnant with his child. The Wife was assured by the Husband that he did not want a divorce and was only meant to have a child. 13.The Husband’s relationship with the 2nd Respondent, however, went on and on until now. Over the years, the 2nd Respondent gave birth to 4 children with the Husband who are now respectively of the age of 13, 10, 8 and 4. It is common ground that such relationship ‘running in parallel’ to the marital relationship with the Wife. 14.At the same time, the Husband’s business continued to grow. In July 2001, he formed a new construction company PB Engineering Limited (“PB”) with a partner Mr. Yeung, each holding equal shares in the company. It is around this time that the Husband started not to let the Wife involved in his businesses dealings and transactions. The Wife was then kept in the dark as to the Husband’s financial position and his income generated from the businesses. 15.In November 2005, the HF Construction Co. Ltd was deregistered as a defunct private company. 16.In October 2007, the Husband and his partner Mr. Yeung formed another company UB Engineering Limited (“UB”) in equal shares to replace the PB Company. 17.In April 2008, the Husband and his partner Mr. Yeung formed another company SW Engineering Limited (“SW”) also in equal shares to run the business along with UB. Around this time the parties bought the property at Manhattan Hill where they resided as their matrimonial home prior to the Husband’s sudden departure in May 2014. 18.On 2 May 2014, the Husband abruptly packed his personal belongings and left the matrimonial home at Manhattan Hill whilst the Wife was at work. The Husband went to live with the 2nd Respondent in Shatin. The Husband left behind 2 letters of the same date in the letter box to the Wife which was written in Chinese by him. The Wife was shocked, devastated and shattered by the Husband’s all of a sudden departure. The applicable principles 19.Section 3 of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance, Cap.192 (“MPPO”) provides the Court the discretionary power to make interim orders requiring one party to the marriage to make to the other periodical payments for his or her maintenance as the court thinks reasonable having considered all the circumstances of the case (see HJFG v. KCY [1012] 1 HKLRD 95). The overriding principle is one of ‘reasonableness’. 20.It is useful to recite those paragraphs of Hartmann JA (as he then was) in the HJFG case :-
21.There is not much dispute by both Senior Counsels as to the law on maintenance pending suit application which is well settled. 22.In addition to those commonly cited Hong Kong cases for maintenance pending suit applications, Miss Yip, S.C., referred to 2 cases in the Probate Division in England and Wales, namely, Sansom v. Sansom [1966] and Acworth v. Acworth [1942]; and also the case of Griffith v. Griffith [1957] 1 All ER 494. Mr Pang, S.C., referred to the English case of Moore v. Moore [2010] 1 FLR 1413. The undisputed facts 23.The following are undisputed facts :
The Wife’s case 24.She maintained a personal bank account with the Standard Chartered Bank (“SC Bank”) through which she has been using it for throughout the years to settle all the family and household expenses. Throughout the marriage, it has been her habit of accumulating and saving the moneys given to her by the Husband up to certain amount and then transferred a significant sum from the HSBC account to the SC Bank account. The Husband has all along been aware of such arrangement and throughout the years had never asked her to account for the moneys that he gave to her. 25.She has all along been thrifty on her personal expenses and also on the up keeping of the family. She did not spend much on the AE Card. Most of her AE Card spending was for modest sums such as purchase of movie tickets. In May 2014, following the Husband’s sudden departure from her when she was devastated, she made a one-off splurging in the sum of HK$227,357 on the AE Card. The Husband became furious and sent her threatening text message. She immediately and without second thought settled the spending on her own in one payment by writing out a cheque to the Husband. Nevertheless, the Husband then terminated the AE Card. 26.She is now working as a supporting staff at a bank earning a modest salary of HK$9,880 a month and has had to rely on her savings to defray her monthly expenses, not to say the substantial legal costs that had incurred and would have to be incurred for these proceedings. Her updated expenses set out in her 4th Affirmation are as follows :
27.Thus, the Wife’s maintenance pending suit (“MPS”) budget is in the region of HK$74,610 (HK$26,110 + HK$48,500) a month. The Husband’s case 28.The Husband challenge rests upon the Wife’s financial resources readily in hand and her actual financial needs. Apart from the salary of HK$9,880 a month, the Wife’s other sources of income include :-
29.Thus, the Wife’s income from various other sources together with her monthly salary added up to no less than HK$31,180 a month (HK$9,880 + HK$10,000 + HK$4,000+ HK$7,300 = HK$31,180). In the Wife’s Form E, she disclosed having a total capital sum of about HK$14 million as of June 2014 which, according to the Husband, are moneys transferred out unilaterally by the Wife from the HSBC account over the years. 30.There is no depletion of finances on the Wife. Although her disclosed cash and stocks updated a year later in June 2015 came down to about HK$10.9 million, this is for the fact that she withdrew HK$3 million from her SC Bank account to purchase a new life insurance policy thus ended in the reduction of her liquid case asset value from HK$14 million odd to HK$10.9 million odd dollars. 31.As to the Wife’s MPS budget, the Husband considered the items have been exaggerated and that most, if not all, of the expenses are not substantiated by receipts or any relevant documents. Mr. Pang S.C., in his written Skeleton Submissions analysed the Wife’s items of expenses listed under, namely, (a) General Expenses; and (b) Personal Expenses, and then set out what would be the Wife’s reasonable expenses. According to the Husband, the Wife’s reasonable expenses are estimated at the region around HK$28,246 a month as follows :
32.Such estimated amount of monthly expenses in fact tally with the figure of HK$28,300 which can be deduced from going through those transactions appeared in the Wife’s bank statements and credit card statements. Thus, the Wife is capable to accumulate almost all the sums deposited by the Husband into the HSBC account over the years. 33.As to the Husband’s finances, he only has about HK$3.5 million of liquid cash in his bank accounts, which is about ¼ of the liquid assets of the Wife. His salary income from his companies is HK$70,000. On top of the salary income, he had received year-end bonuses from his 2 companies. For the year ended March 2014, he received HK$2,095,000 from the company UB and HK$1,065,000 from the company SW. However, he anticipated lower business profit for at least the year ahead since the main contractor of UB and SW had lost a maintenance contract work for the Vocational Training Council. Although there was another contract for the Hospital Authority as replacement, he estimated the profit margin would be much lower due to the need to increase costs of manpower and office space for such newly obtained contract. 34.As to the Husband’s liabilities, in his Answers dated 29 May 2015 to the Wife’s Questionnaire, the monthly expenses came about to the region of around HK$ 224,826 as follows :-
35.There is also the added financial constraint as to his personal medical expenses caused by the Wife’s cancellation of his medical insurance policy in April 2015. This medical policy was taken up since 1992. Given the fact that the Husband previously suffered from kidney tumour and had angioplasty twice, he is now unable to take out any new medical insurance coverage. He would have to pay those medical expenses from his own pocket. 36.Mr. Pang, S.C., for the Husband in his able submissions referred to the judgment of Hon Hartmann JA (as he then was) in the HJFG case (supra) where His Lordship said the courts had no jurisdiction to make orders which for all practical purposes result in pre-trial capital rebalancing. This would have happened in this case since the Wife’s assets is quadruple to that of the Husband but nevertheless seeks maintenance pending suit for a sum which is significantly in excess of her actual reasonable needs. 37.Mr. Pang, S.C., at paragraph 74 of his written Skeleton Submissions made out a meticulous calculation based upon the Wife’s disclosed liquid assets on hand of HK$10.9 million for paying off an estimated needs of HK$28,300 a month, it ends up with a period of 385 months (that is, 32 years). Had the sum of HK$70,000 been used as the Wife’s needs per month, it still came up with a period of 155 months (that is, 13 years) to go along with the HK$10.9 million odd liquid cash assets. Discussion and Analysis 38.As mentioned, this Court delivered its Decision the day before this hearing on the Wife’s extended discovery as to the Husband’s finances of which had yet to be seen. Leaving aside any further assets which might come to light, I am not convinced that on the value of assets presently available, this is one of those ‘big-money’ cases for ancillary reliefs. 39.However, on the available evidence and also a common ground of the parties, that there is no urgent and immediate need of cash for the Wife nor is there any shortage of cash for the Husband. In such a situation, the focus would thus fall upon whether it is ‘reasonable’ for granting maintenance pending suit rather than the Wife’s “immediate needs” for it or the Husband’s “ability to pay” to pay for it. 40.In the unreported case of C v. F (FCMC No.1701 of 2000), His Honour Judge Bruno Chan at paragraph 14 of the Judgment had said :
41.Pausing here, Miss Yip, S.C., for the Wife has throughout this case submitted to this Court that there is a peculiar feature of this case by using the terminology “tri-partes relationship” to reflect the relationship of the Husband and the 2nd Respondent running in parallel with the marriage in question since 2001 for some 13 odd years and still continuing which had sadly ended up with the breakdown of the marriage. 42.I agree with Miss Yip, S.C. that such “tri-partes relationship” is peculiar and indeed a factor, in the words of the learned Judge Bruno Chan, relating to the marriage which was drawn to this Court’s attention and would have to be borne in mind when considering maintenance pending suit application (see C v. F, supra). Given such peculiar feature and the undisputed fact that the Husband has been maintaining ‘2 families’ at the same time for some 13 odd years, it is on all reasonableness that this Court when considering the standard of living of the parties, to also take note of the spending made for the 2nd Respondent whom the Husband had also maintained throughout the years. In this regard, I have reminded myself against making any moral judgment to the detriment of the Husband in respect of the “tri-partes relationship” and confined myself to only consider what is required under the law to determine the Wife’s MPS application. 43.Having said, I am entitled to consider Miss Yip S.C., submissions as to the spending and lifestyle of the Husband over the 2nd Respondent and the 4 children born out of the relationship with the 2nd Respondent, which was paid for by the Husband as per his American Express Centurion Card statements or receipts as follows :
44.In addition, as Miss Yip, S.C., with her junior has helpfully summated from the Husband’s answers and statements, that there are the following financial provisions made by the Husband to the 2nd Respondent and/or the 4 children over the years as follows :
45.It is very important for this Court to also take note that the above summation contains financial provisions made before and after the Husband’s departure in May 2014. Most of the provisions were made during the time when the Husband was giving to the Wife his entire monthly salary of HK$70,000 via deposits into the HSBC account. Such long established pattern of payment to the Wife, however, ceased in June 2014, which is coincidentally or otherwise the month following his abrupt departure from the Wife and the Wife’s commencement of these divorce proceedings in May 2014. 46.As to the standard of living of the Husband, and again Miss Yip, S.C., with her junior also helpfully summated the Husband’s spending on his own by going through the Husband’s credit card statements and answers to the Wife’s questionnaires as follows :
47.Miss Yip, S.C., in her able submissions referred to the ludicrousness of the Husband to now make use of the Wife’s merit or credit of thriftiness over the years of marriage against her in his opposition to maintenance pending suit application, to put in the context expressed by Miss Yip, S.C., : “Is that the Wife should continue to be thrifty since she does not need that much money and not be entitled to the same pattern of payment that she had been receiving throughout the years prior to the breakdown of marriage ?” I fully agree with Miss Yip, S.C.’s submission. 48.In my view, unless there is cogent evidence showing a material change of financial circumstances to the extent affecting the Husband’s ability to continue with what he had so far been paying to the Wife for years, there is no room for the Husband to cease an established pattern of payment simply because a divorce suit was filed against him. Had this been allowed, it is tantamount to set up some form of financial threat or duress to deter a spouse from taking court proceedings. Put it the other way, it is akin to ‘penalise’ the Wife for filing the divorce. 49.I am not convinced by the Husband’s evidence that there was any material change in his financial circumstances in June 2014 which had affected his ability to continue to pay the HK$70,000, or more precisely HK$60,000 since out of which HK$10,000 was reserved for his own spending. He was and is running the companies UB and SW and that both of them are still in business. Any contingencies or uncertainties as to business turnover or profits, as Miss Yip S.C. rightly submitted, is something bound to occur in all commercial settings and one have to wait and see. After all, any maintenance pending suit order is always subject to variation if there is any genuine and material change of circumstances after such order was granted. 50.This led to another issue in this case, which is, whether the salaries given to the Wife was actually her ‘maintenance’? Was it intended for the Wife’s maintenance ? 51.Parties disputed heatedly as to the nature and purpose of the HK$70,000 given by the Husband to the Wife. The Husband’s case is that all along his salary was aimed for investment and savings for their retirement purposes rather than maintenance for the Wife. He expected the Wife to manage the moneys. The Wife’s case is that she was entrusted by the Husband to use the moneys without restraint for her maintenance and also for defraying family expenses. 52.In the English case of Acworth v. Acworth in 1942 where Scott LJ said :
53.In the later case of Sansome v. Sansome in 1966, which is an appeal from the Registrar in increasing a permanent alimony of the wife, where Sir Jocelyn Simon P said :
54.In the case of HJFG (supra) where Hartmann JA (as he then was) at paragraph 34 of the Judgment said :
55.Mr. Pang, S.C, submitted the above cases are not related to maintenance pending suit applications but rather for permanent financial orders. 56.In my view, to ascertain the common intention and conduct of the parties in the present case are more important that to apply the ordinary literal meaning of the word ‘maintenance’, though I am bound to take note of those cases and authorities where the term ‘maintenance’ had been defined. 57.As earlier mentioned, there has been an established pattern of payment by the Husband of his entire salary to the Wife. Given the fact that the Wife at all times since 1996 was a full time housewife financially dependent upon the Husband, I find it more probable than not that it would be in the Husband’s knowledge and contemplation that part of his salary would be used for defraying the monthly family expenses. As Miss Yip S.C., rightly submitted, if those deposits were aimed for safe keeping and investments, then, how could the Wife who was unemployed to defray those day to day family expenses? 58.As to the remaining part of his salary, there is no evidence from the Husband that he had ever requested for, or had the Wife ever informed him of, details of any surplus that remained in the HSBC account for a particular month or for any particular period after defrayment of family expenses. There is also no evidence that over the years the Husband had ever checked the balance of the HSBC account for ascertaining how the ‘investments’ are up to. This is antagonistic to any case of ‘saving up moneys for retirement purposes’ as the Husband had so alleged. 59.Considering objectively all the circumstances, I am inclined to find in favour of the Wife that the moneys given to her by the Husband as per the establish pattern of payment was more likely than not for her personal use with no restrictions, including for her to defray all necessary day to day family expenses. Whatever sums left over after defrayment of expenses would be for the purpose of her maintenance. 60.It is the established pattern of payment, with the Husband’s knowledge and concurrence of those recurring expenses for family living (although not knowing the exact amount) were to be defrayed out of it by the Wife, satisfies the notion of ‘meeting the recurring costs of living at whatever standard of living is appropriate’ propounded by His Lordship Hartmann JA in HJKG. 61.Before I leave this area of established pattern of payment, the learned Judge in C v. F (supra) at paragraph 58 of the Judgment had also said :
62.As can be seen from the above cases, it has been over half a century since Acworth in 1942 until HJKG in 2011 that the term “maintenance” was judicially considered as a wide word involving a broad concept. Depending on the facts of each particular case, I believe “maintenance” under the context of maintenance pending suit applications covers different categories and also with varying spectrum of coverage. The ultimate answer, in my view, is one of ‘reasonableness’ considered objectively by the Court having regard to all the circumstances of the case in question and then exercise its discretion on a ‘broad brush’ basis. Any capital rebalancing? 63.With respect, I cannot agree with Mr. Pang, S.C., that there may be capital rebalancing if the Court is minded to order the Husband to pay maintenance pending suit to the Wife whilst there is significant disparity of liquid assets of the parties, the amount sought is over and in excess of the estimated reasonable needs and also there is no immediate financial needs of the Wife. 64.The fact that the Wife is in possession of assets in excess of the Husband does not necessarily prevent or debar her from seeking maintenance pending suit. Each case must depend upon its own facts. The recent case of YBK v. CLHD (FCMC 456/2015) date of judgment : 7 October 2015 was cited by Mr. Pang S.C. where the wife’s application for the daughter’s interim maintenance was dismissed. The learned Judge in that case had found that there was no urgent need since the wife had been single-handedly maintained the daughter for the past 10 years and no serious action was taken by her against the husband for almost a decade. Moreover, the husband who was suffering from bad health was only left with HK$440,000 cash in banks. 65.Although the Wife in the present case also does not have urgent need for maintenance as in the YBK case, there is however the established pattern of payment for years which was, in the absence of any evidence as to any material change of financial circumstances, ceased completely by the Husband soon after and in the month following his sudden departure from the Wife. This also coincides with the time that it happened soon after the Wife filed her divorce petition. The established pattern of payment falls upon, quoting the words of the learned judge in C v. F (supra) “part of the parties’ lifestyle and practice in the past” of which there is no justifiable reasons for the Husband to bring it to a complete end. 66.In any event the Husband, in his handwritten letter to the Wife dated 30 April 2014 which is 2 days before his sudden ‘disappearance’, had assured her with the same standard of living which she enjoyed over the years. Miss Yip, S.C., took the liberty to read out the contents of the 2 letters in Court which I reproduced as follows :-
67.It is also my decision that, on all fairness, which is the governing principle on maintenance pending suit applications, that the Wife should be entitled to the same ‘established pattern of payment’ for the during of these proceedings. As Miss Yip S.C., also fairly submitted, that the Wife already did not seek any litigation funding or to also include those bonuses which she hitherto received in the present application. 68.Further, this is not any kind of capital rebalancing since, as at the date of this hearing, discovery against the Husband had yet to be completed. Given the peculiar feature of this “tri-partes relationship”, there may also have complicated issues involving finances (if any when considering the Wife’s ancillary reliefs) spent on the 2nd Respondent which had yet to be explored. It is, in my view, ‘premature’ to say that there was capital rebalancing merely by reference to the face value of liquid cash on hand of the parties. 69.After all, the Court is only required to approach maintenance pending suit in a ‘broad brush’ manner. Should there be any over-provision or under-provision, it can always be adjusted at the ancillary relief trial proper at a later stage. How much MPS should the Husband pay to the Wife? 70.Now I turn to the amount to be awarded. The undisputed evidence is that the Husband would be keeping HK$10,000 out of the sum of HK$70,000 deposited for his own spending. This is also part and parcel of the established pattern of payment of which I have found for awarding maintenance pending suit to the Wife. 71.Accordingly, I decide the amount of maintenance pending suit should be HK$60,000 a month (that is, HK$70,000 minus HK$10,000). Should there be back-dating? 72.The next question is whether it should be backdated to 1st June 2014 as prayed for by the Wife. Given the fact that there is no finding of ‘immediate needs’ of the Wife or reimbursement of expenses spent by her since the Husband’s cessation of the established pattern of payment, I do not intend to backdate the maintenance pending suit. 73.In broad terms, I will order the maintenance pending suit of HK$60,000 per month to commence from the 15th day of December 2015 and thereafter on the 15th day of each succeeding month until further order. Other matters 74.It is the Husband’s case that over the years the Wife had withdrawn substantial sums away from the HSBC account without his knowledge and consent to her personal SC bank account. In my view, these are ‘conduct’ issues which should be considered when it comes to the ancillary relief trial proper and not at this interim stage of maintenance pending suit. Over and again, any withdrawal in excess of her entitlement adjudged at the end of the day would have to be accounted for or ‘added back’ in the computation process. 75.Accordingly, I will not make any findings on such contention of withdrawals. Reinstatement of AE Card 76.I agree with Mr. Pang S.C., that there is no jurisdiction to order reinstatement of the AE Card under the maintenance pending suit provisions. Thus, this item of claim fails. 77.In any event, the Wife’s spending on the AE Card had all along been on modest sums which should, as Mr. Pang S.C., so submitted and I agreed, would have been reflected in the expenses items under the Wife’s MPS budget. Costs 78.As to the question of costs, I find there is no reason for departure from the normal rule of costs to follow the event. I will so order. 79.I will also grant Certificate for Senior Counsel. 80.This is a costs order nisi which will be made absolute if no application to vary it is made within 14 days. Orders 81.For all the above reasons, I now grant the following Orders :-
82.Last but not least, I wish to thank both Senior Counsels for their valuable assistance to this Court.
Miss Anita Yip, S.C., leading Miss Christina Tseng, instructed by Messrs. Cheng & Co., Solicitors for the Petitioner Mr. Robert Pang, S.C., leading Mr. Eugene Yim instructed by Messrs. Hastings, Solicitors for the 1st Respondent | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under FCMC 6082/2014