Ckf v. Lhl

FCMC No.17031/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES NO. 17031 OF 2014

____________

____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N
(Restoration of Injunction Summons/Committal Proceedings)

_____________

Introduction

1.The Petitioner is the Wife (“Wife”) and the Respondent is the Husband (“Husband”).

2.On 16 January 2015, the Husband applied ex parte for various injunctive reliefs against the Wife.   Upon the Undertaking to file and serve an Inter-Partes Summons on 20 January 2015 (“Injunction Summons”), the Court granted an interim Order in the terms of the reliefs sought (with amendments) and scheduled a returnable date of 6 February 2015 for the Injunction Summons. 

3.At the adjourned hearing on 6 February 2015, the Wife was represented by Messrs. Cheung & Liu, Solicitors.  Undertakings were given by the Wife in those terms identical to the injunctive reliefs sought and, accordingly and as in most cases, the Injunction Summons was adjourned sine die with liberty to restore.   As a matter of fact, there is another Undertaking given by the Wife (which does not form the Husband’s complaint in his Injunction Summons) not to discuss, talk about or inform the child of the family any matters in these divorce proceedings.   

4.On 18 December 2015, the Husband filed his 4^th Affirmation as an ex parte application seeking leave to issue Committal Proceedings against the Wife under Order 52 rule 2 of the Rules of the District Court, Cap.336H (“RDC”), for breach of those Undertakings given by her to the Court on 6 February 2015.   

5.Whilst leave of the Court for issuing Committal Proceedings was pending, the Husband issued a further Summons (“Restoration Summons”) on 11 February 2016 seeking leave to restore the Injunction Summons.   The Restoration Summons was heard on 22 February 2016 and then adjourned to 18 April 2016 with directions as to the filing of affirmations from both parties.  

6.On the 16 February 2016 (which is 5 days later), ex parte leave was granted to the Husband to issue Committal Proceedings. Pursuant to such leave, the Husband issued a Summons for Committal on 17 February 2016 (“Committal Summons”) with a returnable date of 18 April 2016, which coincides with the adjourned hearing of the Restoration Summons.

The Husband’s 2 Summonses

7.Today’s hearing was scheduled for the trial of the Husband’s Restoration Summons and the Committal Summon with 2 days reserved.

8.In light of the fact that the Wife has engaged lawyers and filed her Summons dated 17 August 2016 (“Setting Aside Summons”) and also returnable today, Husband’s Counsel Mr. Enzo Chow fairly agreed that the Wife’s Setting Aside Summons should first be disposed of prior to the trial of the Husband’s 2 Summonses.

The Wife’s “Setting Aside Summons”

9.The terms of the Wife’s Setting Aside Summons are as follows :-

“1. The ex parte order for leave for the Respondent to make an application for an order of committal against the Petitioner dated 16February 2016 be set aside;

2. The Respondent’s inter parte originating summons dated 16 February 2016 (filed on 17 February 2016) be dismissed;

3. The hearing of the Respondent’s inter partes originating summons dated 16 February 2016 scheduled to be heard before Deputy District Judge George Own on 23 August 2016 and 24 August 2016 be vacated;

4. Costs of and incidental to this application be paid by the Respondent to the Petitioner;

5. Service of this Summons be abridged.”

The Wife’s application

10.Counsel Miss Lareina J Chan (“Miss Chan”) appeared for the Wife.

11.As to the Restoration Summons, Miss Chan’s submissions are that it should be dismissed.  Since it has been rightly conceded by Husband’s Counsel Mr. Chow that breach of an undertaking given to the Court is tentamount to a breach of an injunction (see §7 and 17 of Mr. Chow’s written submissions), the Husband is effectively seeking ‘double protection’ by issuing the Restoration Summons. Enforcement of Undertakings through restoration of the Injunction Summons under which the Undertakings were given is an abuse of process.

12.The reason put forward by the Husband that the Wife could not be trusted to comply with her Undertakings or the Undertakings already given serve no meaningful purpose (see §21 and 23 of Mr. Chow’s written submissions), when considered against the Husband’s concession that breaches of undertakings and injunctions are synonymous, simply could not stand.   

13.As to the Committal Summons, Miss Chan submitted that the committal proceedings are rendered a nullity and that it should be dismissed also.   The leave for issuing the committal proceedings should not have been granted at the outset for 2 reasons.   First, there are serious procedural deficiencies in the Husband’s application.    Secondly, any such procedural deficiencies constitute fundamental flaw in the committal proceedings which could not be cured or rectified.

14.The Husband’s 4^th Affirmation was filed on 18 December 2015 to seek leave to commence committal proceedings.   There was produced as an exhibit marked “LHL-25” which is an audio disc containing different files of dialogue between the Husband and the Wife on 2 November 2015, stored under file numbers WA0011, WA0013, WA0015, WA0016 and WA0025.  Transcripts for those telephone dialogues were also produced.    Within his 4^th Affirmation, the Husband also referred to another exhibit “LHL-15” produced by him in his earlier Affirmation.   This exhibit “LHL-15” contained quotes of various SMS text messages allegedly sent by the Wife to the Husband in October 2015.    It was submitted that those recordings are deliberately out of context and carefully cherry-picked to paint a particular picture which, at best or at most, only reveal half of the real picture.   The Husband had failed in providing full and frank disclosure in his 4^th Affirmation.

15.Further, as so required by Order 52 rule 2(2) of the RDC, the Husband produced the requisite Statement (“Husband’s Statement”).

16.The Wife’s challenges the Husband’s Statement in that it failed to provide sufficient particulars as to what exactly the Wife had done which constitutes the contempt so that the Wife could be able to know exactly what charges she has to meet.   There is simply no pleaded case in the Husband’s Statement except a wholly unparticularised reference to ‘repeated harassment and nuisance’ (多番騷擾和滋擾).

17.Moreover, the Committal Summons issued pursuant to the leave granted also does not state the grounds in respect of which leave for making the ex part application has been granted. 

18.Still further, the Husband could only be confined to his pleaded case in the Husband’s Statement and cannot go beyond it to rely on matters which had not been pleaded in the Husband’s Statement. There was no reference in the Husband’s Statement as to when, where, how the alleged repeated harassment and nuisance had happened.   Given the fact that there is no pleaded case in the Husband’s Statement save and except the only reference to ‘repeated harassment and nuisance’, he could not rely upon affidavit evidence to then supplement or provide details of the alleged harassment and nuisance in order to cure or rectify the fundamental flaw or defect in the Husband’s Statement.   The Husband’s Statement is, so submitted by Counsel Miss Chan, defective. 

19.Since defects in the contents of the Statement under Order 52 rule 2 and/or the Committal Summons so issued are fundamentally flawed which cannot be cured by the supporting affirmation, the entire committal proceedings commenced would then be an irregular one and any orders made therein would be improperly obtained. 

The Husband’s opposition

20.Counsel Mr. Enzo Chow (“Mr. Chow”) appeared for the Husband.

21.Reference was made to the contumacious acts of the Wife as stated in the Husband’s 4^th Affirmation.   At paragraph 10 of Counsel Mr. Chow’s written submissions, he narrated the 4 incidents complained of by the Husband. 

22.Reference was also made to the absence of denial by the Wife, at any stage in the committal proceedings, of those matters being complained of by the Husband.   The Wife has had sufficient opportunity to file and serve affirmation in opposition to the Husband’s 2 Summonses and presented her case.   The Wife has, however, only filed an Affirmation dated 1 March 2016 which does not contain any matters relevant to the Husband’s 2 Summonses or revealed her case of opposition.

23.Besides, the Wife also had never complained about the quality of the evidence produced by the Husband.  She and/her legal representatives could have raised the issue well in advance and far before the trial today.

24.Finally, Mr. Chow also made a quick reference to Order 2 rule 2 of the Hong Kong Civil Procedure as to the effects of non-compliance of the procedural rules.

The Applicable Law and Rules of Procedure

25.First of all, there is no issue as to the applicable rules, in so far as the committal proceedings are concerned, are contained in Order 52 rules 2 and 3 of the Rules of the District Court, Cap.336H (“RDC”).

26.Order 52 rule 2 provides :-

“(1) No application for an order of committal against any person may be made unless leave to make such an application has been granted in accordance with this rule.

(2) An application for such leave must be made ex parte to a judge, and must be supported by a statement setting out the name and description of the applicant, the name, description and address of the person sought to be committed and the grounds on which his committal is sought, and by an affidavit, to be filed before the application is made, verifying the facts relied on.

(3) The applicant must give notice of the application for leave not later than the preceding day to the Registrar and must at the same time lodge with the Registrar copies of the statement and affidavit.

(4) The judge may determine the application for leave without a hearing, unless a hearing is requested in the notice of application, and need not sit in open court; and in any case the Registrar shall serve a copy of the judge’s order on the applicant.

(5) Where an application for leave is refused by a judge or is granted on terms, the applicant may appeal against the jduge’s order to the Court of Appeal within 10 days after such order.

(6) Without prejudice to the powers conferred by Order 20, rule 8, the judge hearing an application for leave may allow the applicant’s statement to be amended on such terms, if any, as the judge thinks fit.

(7) If the judge grants leave he may impose such terms as to costs and as to giving of security as he thinks fit.”

27.Order 52 rule 3 provides :-

“(1) When leave has been granted to make an application for an order of committal, the application shall be made by originating summons to a judge and unless the Court granting leave has otherwise directed, there must be at least 8 clear days between the service of the originating summons and the day named therein for the hearing.

(1A) The originating summons shall state the grounds in respect of which leave for making an application for an order of committal has been granted.

(2) Unless within 14 days after such leave was granted the originating summons is entered for hearing the leave shall lapse.

(3) The originating summons, accompanied by a copy of the statement and affidavit in support of the application for leave under rule 2, must be served personally on the person sought to be committed.

(4) Without prejudice to the powers of the Court under Order 65, rule 4, the Court may dispense with service of the originating summons under this rule if it thinks fit to do so.”

The Court’s Views

28.I will deal with the Restoration Summons first.

29.The necessity of issuing the Restoration Summons, as given by the Husband, is that the Wife could no longer be trusted with her words, or put it the other way, she would not comply with or abide by the Undertakings that she had given.    Those repeated threats and harassments set forth in the Husband’s 6^th Affirmation were caused by the Wife which are contumacious and in breach of the terms of the Undertakings that she had given. It is the Husband’s position that the Undertakings will not serve any meaningful purpose at all.    The Wife will not be stopped by her own Undertakings unless she is penalised by a means which is commensurate to her acts, i.e. being committed to prison (§21 of Mr. Chow’s written submissions).

30.Counsel Mr. Chow fairly recited the legal position in so far as Undertakings are concerned in the context of matrimonial proceedings.   Citing Roberts v. Roberts [1990] 2 FLR 111 where Butler-Sloss LJ said :

“It is important for parties in matrimonial disputes to appreciate that an undertaking has all the force of an injunction. It is equally as important as an injunction, and it has the same penalties for the failure to abide by it as an injunction. It is all too easy for people to promise and all too easy for them to break that promise. Then they, quite rightly, have to face the wrath of the court for having made promises which were not worth the paper which they have signed.”

31.In my view, undertakings voluntarily given by a party against whom injunctions are sought operate in a way that that party has agreed to abide by his or her Undertakings in return for (my emphasis) the Court’s indulgence not to make injunction orders to either compel performance (mandatory injunctions) or to restrain him or her from doing certain acts (prohibitive injunctions).   The precise wordings of the Undertakings and those terms being sought for in the injunction summons are thus of importance.    It could always happen that the terms in the Undertakings are less restrictive, more or less similar or even identical to the terms drafted in the related injunction summons against which the Undertakings were proffered.  

32.Once Undertakings are given and accepted, the injunction summons would then be adjourned sine die with liberty to restore.   This is the prevailing practice all along.   The question which follows next, as in the present case, is when and under what circumstances should the injunction summons be restored ?   

33.Unfortunately, I have not been assisted by both parties’ Counsel on this particular issue, either on submissions or authorities.   In my view, whenever there is non-compliance with the Undertakings given, the other party whose injunction summons was adjourned sine die would have 2 alternative options open, one way or the other rather than both simultaneously.  

34.First, he may wish to cite the defiant party for contempt for breach of Undertakings through issuing committal proceedings.  The defiant party would then have to provide justification for the alleged breach or to seek to purge the contempt arising from the breaches and; failing which, appropriate sanctions or punitive consequences may follow.  

35.The other alternative option is for the party whose injunction summons was adjourned sine die, whilst reserving his or her rights on the non-compliance, to ‘revive’ the matter by going back to the Court through restoring the injunction summons.    Such option would provide him or her a chance to put before the Court the events that had happened which constituted the breaches of or non-compliance with the Undertakings. Having given consideration to any explanation proffered by the defiant party, the Court would then have to consider whether the Undertakings need to be modified or fine-tuned in order to cater for those situations that had happened leading to the breaches which may not have been anticipated at the time when the Undertakings were given.  

36.Apparently, the former is a process for punitive sanctions against the defiant party whereas the latter is a process for obtaining remedial reliefs through a ‘review with hindsight’ exercise.    Whichever option is better and appropriate and which would yield fruitful results to better serve justice varies from case to case.

37.In the present case, the Husband’s Restoration Summons (which does not require leave to do so) was filed on 11 February 2016.  This was after the Husband had filed his 4^th Affirmation on 17 December 2015 seeking leave to commence committal proceedings.    Although such leave was only granted on 16 February 2016 (which is 5 days after the Restoration Summons was filed), the Husband decided to issue the Committal Summons the following day on 17 February 2016 whilst keeping his earlier Restoration Summons alive and ongoing.    These 2 Summonses were then listed for trial together by the Husband.

38.Given full consideration to Husband’s Counsel Mr. Chow’s written submissions, it is clear that the Husband wishes to pursue the first option which I have outlined above, namely, seeking punitive sanctions against the Wife who should be penalised by a means commensurate to her acts, that is, being committed to prison (see §21 of Counsel Mr. Chow’s written submissions).  

39.For my observations under paragraphs 31 to 36 above, I agree with Wife’s Counsel that the continuation of the Restoration Summons is in effect seeking what Miss Chan called it “double protection” in her written submissions.   The issuance of and continuation with the Committal Summons for punitive sanctions on the one hand and, restoring the Injunction Summons for remedial reliefs on the other hand, as I have so found in paragraphs 33 and 36 above, simply does not sit happily together.

40.For all these reasons, I will dismiss the Restoration Summons.

41.I will now deal with the Committal Summons.

42.The Wife’s contentions turned upon the legal and procedural aspects of the committal proceedings rather than upon any factual issues.   The Wife’s Counsel Miss Chan has rightly and succinctly set out in her written submissions the procedural requirements for issuing committal proceedings under Order 52 rules 2 and 3 of the Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2016.    No issue was taken by the Husband’s Counsel Mr. Chow on the procedural requirement.

43.The authorities referred to by Counsel Miss Chan include AXA China Region Insurance Company Ltd v. AXA China Region Insurance Company (Bermuda) Ltd (unreported, CACV 217/2002); LPK v. HSH [2012] 2 HKLRD 1031; The Incorporated Owners of United Building v. Ng Yuk Ming (unreported, HCA No.4157/1993); Aqua-Leisure Industries v. Aqua Splash Ltd (unreported, HCA 18928/1998); and Yau Chiu Wah v. Gold Chief Investment Ltd (unreported, HCA 807/2001).

44.Counsel Mr. Enzo Chow for the Husband referred to the case of Kao, Lee & Yip v. Donald Koo Hoi Yan & Ors (2009) 12 HKCFAR 830.  Counsel submitted that the justification for so doing was necessitated by the repetitive contumacious acts of the Wife which had been fully set out in the Husband’s 4^th Affirmation.   The Wife had not denied those acts were hers in her Affirmation dated 1 March 2016.   Common sense tells that those acts would not have been committed by the Wife inadvertently.  The only reasonable conclusion which can be drawn is that the Wife did commit the acts consciously with desire to pose threats and harassments to the Husband. 

45.In the decision of this Court in LPK v. HSH (supra) where the nature, importance and contents of the requisite Statement filed under Order 52 rule 2 have been fully set out.   At paragraph 32 of the Judgment where this Court had said :

“32. The importance of the statement under O.52 r.2(2) has been discussed in the Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2012 Vol.1, p.954-955 para. 52/3/6 as follows :

‘The statement in support of the application is to be treated in a similar manner as an indictment in criminal proceedings having regard to the penal nature of the sanctions for contempt. At the substantial hearing the applicant cannot (except with the leave of the court) rely on any grounds not stated in the originating summons, being grounds in respect of which leave for making the application for an order of committal has been granted. The statement should state all the factual elements which, if proved, are sufficient to establish the contempt, but not the evidence in support. Great care therefore must be exercised in drafting the statement...........’

46.At page 954 para.52/2/6 the learned editors went on to say :

‘The following should be included (r.2(2)):

(a) The name and the description of the applicant;

(b) The name, the description and the address of the person sought to be committed....

(c) The relief sought, i.e. an order for committal and/or fine (and/or sequestration if appropriate) and costs;

(d) Particulars of the order or the undertaking alleged to have been breached;

(e) In case of civil contempt, the personal service thereof on the alleged contemnor (see para.52/2/8) (if personal service is unnecessary for some reason, the statement should state why : Chou Yi Feng v. Chow Yi Chen (unrep. HCA 4393/2001, [2002] HKEC 1437) para.44, Chung J);

(f) How and in what manner is it alleged the order or undertaking has been breached, with sufficient particularity to enable the alleged contemnor to defend himself..... The test for the sufficiency of the statement is : “Does it give the person alleged to be in contempt enough information to enable him to meet the charge ?” (Chiltern DC v. Keane [1985] 1 WLR 619 CA at 622, per Sir John Donaldson MR,.....)’

47.Moreover, at paragraph 36 of the same Judgment in LPK, this Court said :

“36.   However, in my view, if there exists any fundamental flaw in the proceedings, it has to be addressed or resolved before any other issues are to be considered.  This is important for otherwise the entire proceedings may be irregular and orders made therein would be improperly obtained.  The fact of such fundamental flaw not being raised as an issue or preliminary issue or having been noticed by the parties in the litigation would not prevent the Court’s intervention.  This is especially important of the proceedings involve the liberty of the subject such as the present proceedings.”

48.This Court’s decision in LPK had not been taken further on to appeal. I am minded to say this is the correct legal position in terms of the Statement filed under Order 52 rule 2 of the RDC in committal proceedings.

49.No issue was taken by Counsel Mr. Chow that the Husband’s Statement lacks the requisite particulars under Order 52 rule 2, the issue as I can see rather rests upon whether the alleged repetitive nuisance and harassments set forth in the Husband’s 4^th Affirmation, coupled with the lack of denial or traverse by the Wife when she has had ample opportunity to do so, when considered collectively, could ground a case of committal against the Wife for breach of Undertakings.

50.In the absence of any cases and authorities to the contrary, I believe the legal position as to the requisite particulars that must be clearly included in the Statement filed for committal proceedings remain the same as in the case of The Incorporated Owners of United Building v. Ng Yuk Ming (supra) where Hon Yam J citing the judgment of Sir John Donaldson M.R. in Chiltern D.C. v. Keane [1985] 1 WLR 621where it was said :

“.....where the liberty of the subject is involved, this court has time again asserted that the procedural.....the statement itself which required to state the ground.......to list out what undertaking they have done and what breach of the undertaking they have made and all material fact upon which they ......

.......It has been said in many cases that what is required is that the person alleged to be in contempt ......have done or omitted to do which constitutes a contempt of court.

The particular undertakings and injunctions in this case cover a wide range of activities. Mr. Keane was entitled to know whether it was said by the council that he was in breach of every single requirement of those orders or only some, and if so which, of them and the notice failed to give him that information.

Every notice of application to commit must be looked at against its own background.  The test, as I have said, is : does it give the person alleged to be in contempt enough information to enable him to meet the charge ?  If, for example, a defendant is subject to an injunction to leave a stated house not later than a particular time on a particular day, then it would be sufficient to say that he had failed to comply with that order, because it only permits of one breach, namely failure to leave the house by the time stated.  But where the order is not in such a simply form and it is possible for the defendant to be in doubt as to what breach is alleged, then the notice is defective.”

51.Thus, it was decided by this Court in LPK v. HSH (supra) that the Statement is essentially the equivalent of a charge sheet or indictment in criminal proceedings (see §30 of the Judgment).    As to the strictness in compliance with providing all the requisite information in the Statement, Hon Yeung J (as he then was) in the case of Aqua-Leisure Industries Inc v. Aqua Splash Ltd (supra) had said :

“On this particular issue I feel bound by the authorities referred to this court, namely, the case of Chiltern District Council v. Keane [1985] 1 WLR 619 and Harmsworth v. Harmsworth [1987] 1 WLR 1676, in particular, the judgment of Nicholls LJ in the case of Harmsworth v. Harmsworth at page 1683.

I am not persuaded that the difference in the wordings of the English Rules and those of the Hong Kong Rules should make any difference in the approach that the court should adopt on an application of this nature. The “grounds” stipulated in Order 52 rule 2 of the Rules of the High Court must contain detailed allegations of the alleged breach in support of the application for leave. After all, as often said, contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal proceedings with serious consequences. I quote from the Hong Kong Civil Procedure, page 721 :

“The statement in support of an application is to be treated in   similar manner as an indictment in criminal proceedings, having regard to the criminal nature of the sanctions for contempt.”

It cannot be said that in a criminal case the defect in the indictment can be cured by the contents of the summary of facts in support of the indictment, or the statements of the prosecution witnesses.

I appreciate that the approach that I have just mentioned is indeed a very strict approach to the application.  But I am persuaded that such a strict approach is required in an application for a committal for contempt of court, which, as I keep saying, has a serious and far-reaching effect.  I am firmly of the view that strict compliance with the requisite rules must be observed (my emphasis).

52.At the end, His Lordship dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for an order of committal against the defendant and its directors although on grounds of technicality for failure to comply with the Rules of the High Court.   This in fact also had happened in the case of LPK v. HSH (supra).

53.In the present case, it is beyond any dispute that the Husband’s Statement referred to no more than a general reference to ‘repeated harassment and nuisance’ (多番騷擾和滋擾).   In my decision, the Husband’s Statement fell short of the requisite information under Order 52 rule 2 of the RDC which, according to the cases and authorities cited, could not be cured or rectified by his 4^th Affirmation.    As rightly submitted by Counsel Miss Chan which I also agree, there is simply no pleaded case in the Husband’s Statement for the Husband to verify by way of his 4^th Affirmation.    The requisite Affirmation so filed in support is to verify those pleaded cases in the Statement rather than, if I may use the phrase, ‘feeding in’ materials to try to support a case of contempt.    Considering the matter from the criminal law perspective, the Brief Facts in the prosecution case could not supplement the Charge Sheet or Indictment which would, if circumstances arise, need to be amended however trivial was the defect. 

54.The Husband made no attempts at any stage, even as at this hearing, to seek amendment of the Husband’s Statement although any such application would no doubt be strongly contested by the Wife.    In any event, the orthodox approach in a case of a defective Statement filed in committal proceedings was to have it set aside rather than by way of amendment.   In the case of  The Incorporated Owners of United Building v. Ng Yuk Ming (supra) where His Lordship said at the concluding paragraph as follows :

“The next thing I have to consider is whether I should set aside the leave granted to the plaintiff to apply for an order of committal against the defendant or should I allow the plaintiff to amend the Statement. I think it is better to set it aside than allow the plaintiff to start again since there is no amendment put before me, and it is for the applicant to make good their application. When a Statement is set aside for irregularity, the plaintiff can always apply again. In setting aside the Statement, the Notice of Motion issued thereunder must also be dismissed.”

55.As for the submissions that the Husband having failed in full and frank disclosure, I find such issue could only be explored at the stage of trial of the Committal Summons.   At present, the Wife could not come up with solid evidence that all those telephone dialogues and SMS text messages were cherry picked to paint a particular picture.    Thus, I do not accept such contention of the Wife.

56.For all the above reasons and in line with the cases and authorities, I am bound to find the Husband’s Statement fundamentally flawed and defective. I decided that the leave to issue committal proceedings granted upon the Husband’s Statement must be set aside.    This follows the Committal Summons issued are irregular and should be dismissed.

Costs

57.Given careful consideration to all the above, I find no reasons for departure from the normal rule on costs and I will so order accordingly.

58.Also given careful consideration to the parties’ contentions, I am not convinced that there are difficult questions of law or complex issues of fact to justify me granting Certificate for Counsel. 

Orders

59.I now make the following Orders :-

(1)The Respondent’s (Husband’s) Restoration Summons dated 11 February 2016 be dismissed;

(2)The Respondent’s (Husband’s) Injunction Summons dated 16 February 2016 be dismissed;

(3)The Respondent (Husband) do pay the Petitioner’s (Wife’s) costs of the said 2 Summonses, including all costs reserved, to be taxed if not agreed.

60.This is a Costs Order Nisi which will become absolute if no application to vary the same is filed within 21 days of this Decision.

61.And lastly, I wish to thank Counsel for their assistance.

Miss Lareina J Chan instructed by Messrs. Chan, Wong & Lam., Solicitors for the Petitioner

Mr. Enzo Chow instructed by Messrs. K. B. Chau & Co., Solicitors for the Respondent