|
FCMC 5313/2016
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
MATRIMONIAL CAUSES NO. 5313 OF 2016
------------------------
| BETWEEN |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NKL |
Petitioner |
|
and |
|
|
CCKJ |
Respondent |
------------------------
Coram: HH Judge C.K. Chan in Chambers (not open to public)
Date of Hearing: 18 October and 22 November 2017
Date of Decision: 21 December 2017
-----------------------
D E C I S I O N
(DISCOVERY)
------------------------
1.This is a hearing of the Petitioner (“the wife”)’s application for discovery against the Respondent (“the husband”).
Brief Introduction
2.The parties were married in 1986. Within wedlock, they have 2 children, both of them have now reached majority and being self-supporting.
3.Both parties have worked in the insurance field for many years with the husband being an ERD of a reputable insurance company whilst the wife being one of his down-line agents.
4.On 30 September 2015, the wife filed a petition for divorce based on behaviour (FCMC 125678/2015) which was contested by the husband. The wife was then granted leave to file a new petition based on one-year consent (the present petition) and a decree nisi was granted on 30 August 2016.
5.As far as ancillary relief is concerned, the parties are still in the discovery stage. The wife has issued a summons on 1 June 2017 enclosing her draft 3rd Questionnaire (A/150). Leave was granted on 28 June 2017 for part of the 3rd Questionnaire to be answered, leaving certain part of it to be adjourned for argument. Today is the return date for such argument.
6.During the hearing, I noted that some of the questions were no longer necessary and the still outstanding questions are:
(1) 1.1.2
(2) 1.5.1
(3) 2.1.1
(4) 2.1.2
(5) 2.1.3
(6) 2.1.4.4
(7) 3
(8) 4.2
(9) 4.3.3
(10) 5
(11) 6.2
The Law on Discovery in Matrimonial Cases
7.Discovery in matrimonial proceedings is governed by Rule 77(4) of the Matrimonial Causes Rules, Cap.179A (“MCR”) which is as follow:
“(4) Any party to an application for ancillary relief may by letter require any other party to give further information concerning any matter contained in any affidavit filed by or on behalf of that other party or any relevant matter, or to furnish a list of relevant documents or to allow inspection of any such document, and may, in default of compliance by such party, apply to the court for directions.”
8.Although the Court has a wide discretion in giving directions on discovery, the principles on which the Court is to exercise that discretion are not spelt out in the said rule.
9.In this regard, I think much assistance can be gained by referring to O.24 of the Rules of the High Court, Cap.4A (“RHC”) which governs the issue of discovery. However, I do not intend to go into details of O.24 because I do not think the principles as contained therein are in dispute. The principles governing discovery are relevance and necessity. Orders for production of documents will only be made if the materials sought are relevant to the issues and they are also necessary for the fair disposal of the matter or for saving costs (O.24 r.13, RHC).
10.Parties in matrimonial cases are also under an absolute, positive and continuing duty to give full and frank disclosure of his or her means. In L v C [2007] 3 HKLRD 819, Stock JA (as he then was) confirmed this duty by reciting the following passage in Rayden and Jackson on Divorce and Family Matters (18th ed., 2005) at paragraph 69 at p.855:
“69. The effect of the authorities has been summarised thus:
The importance of the duty of both husband and wife to make disclosure of their assets which is full, frank and clear cannot be over emphasised. Unless a court is provided with correct, complete and up-to-date information on the matters to which…it is required to have regard, it cannot lawfully or properly exercise its discretion in the manner ordained by [the statue]. The duty of each party is absolute, and it must be discharged regardless of whether the application for ancillary relief is adjudicated upon by the court after full evidence has been heard, or settled after an exchange of financial information between the parties leading to a consent order. The duty is also a continuing one; a party must not mislead the other party and the court into assuming that his financial situation is unchanged if it [in] fact has changed…. A Party who seeks to negotiate and secure a settlement without informing the other party about a material change in his or her financial circumstances runs the risk that, if a settlement is reached and a consent order is made, the consent order will be set aside by the failure to provide full, frank and timely disclosure. Shortcomings in disclosure will be visited by orders for costs against the offending party, often on the indemnity basis. Furthermore, deviation from the standard of disclosure required may be visited by the court drawing adverse inferences against the party in default.
Rayden and Jackson on Divorce and Family Matters (18th ed., 2005) para.17.28.”
11.I do not think the above general principles are in dispute.
The wife’s requests
Question 1.1.2
12.The 1st Question in dispute is Question 1.1.2 which reads as follows:
“1.1.2 In respect of the Respondent’s answer under paragraphs (iii) and (iv) on page 5,
1.1.2.1 The Petitioner believes that there were records maintained by S or JCC as to the amount of prize money for the lucky draws and who the recipients were at company quarterly dinners. Please provide such records and/or other documentary evidence to prove that the Respondent had provided HK$70,000.00 as prize money for the lucky draws, the amount of each of the prize money and who the recipients were.
1.1.2.2 The Petitioner is aware that the Respondent’s past practice was only to contribute less than HK$20,000.00 as the remaining balance of the amount for the Company quarterly dinner lucky draw would be paid by other attending insurance agents/guests. The Respondent is required to explain why he had to provide HK$70,000.00 allegedly as prize money for the lucky draw on 15 July 2015.
1.1.2.3 The Respondent is required to provide documentary evidence that he had paid HK$40,000.00 for lucky draw in cash, the amount of each of the prize money and who the recipients were.
1.1.2.4 The Respondent is required to state why he had to provide a total sum of HK$110,000.00 for lucky draw on 2 occasions in July 2015 and whether his business partner, AT of S, who jointly owned S with him, had contributed and if so how much to the HK$110,000.00 or any amount for the alleged lucky draw at all. “
My Views
13.Without going into too much details, my understanding is that the husband, as a top executive and RD, has established a service company (“S”) in providing supporting services to his down-line agents. According to him, he has more than 1,000 agents and S often gives out prizes and gifts as incentives to those good performing agents.
14.The husband said he had paid out 2 respective sums of $70,000 and $40,000, totaling $110,000, for lucky draws during company events. The wife now questions the quantum of those payments and so she requests for information and documentary proof of those payments.
15.I note that the wife, as a down-line agent herself, does not dispute that there were lucky draws held by the company. However, she challenged the quantum and so she requested the husband to provide the “amount of each of the prize money and who the recipients were”.
16.I think this is a totally unreasonable request. It is unreasonable in the sense that how could one expect the husband to keep a detailed record of out of those 1,000 or more agents, who has received what price, bearing in mind that some of those prizes may only amount to a few hundred dollars or so. Moreover, despite the exact amount of the matrimonial pot is still in issue, there is no serious dispute that it will amount to at least tens of millions. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the pursuit on the quantum of those prize moneys is totally unjustified.
17.The wife’s request in this question is refused.
Question 1.5.1
18.The second question concerns with the bank statements of the company account of S:
“1.5 In respect of HSBC (JCC Account) Account No. 400-378550-838
1.5.1 The Petitioner does not accept that other shareholder’s and director’s alleged objection to the disclosure of the bank statements of S is a valid reason for the Respondent not to produce relevant documents which are within his possession and control. The Petitioner reiterates her request and further requires the Respondent to produce all bank statements of S from February 2014 to January 2016 to show the transactions between JCC, the Respondent and S, including but not limited to the transfer of funds from the Respondent, whether from accounts in his personal name or from the accounts of JCC or otherwise, to S. “
My Views
19.This request originates from the fact that 13 deposits in the total sum of 2,900,000 were deposited into S’s bank account from the husband’s personal company JCC The wife is now requesting corresponding bank records at S for verification.
20.The husband objects by saying that the other shareholder and director of S objects to the disclosure of the S’s bank statements.
21.I agree that the bank statements of S are clearly relevant in that it will throws light on the relationship between the husband, JCC and S. The husband is a shareholder and director of S, and I believe he should also be in control of the company. I am satisfied that he should produce the bank statements as requested.
Questions 2.1.1 and 2.1.2
22.The next question concerns with S:
“2. The Respondent’s shareholding/beneficial interest in private companies
2.1 In respect of S
2.1.1 The Respondent stated in his answer to paragraph 3.2.1.2 of the Petitioner’s 2nd Questionnaire that the Respondent would provide “additional funding” for S to cover “any short payment/contribution” by AT.
2.1.1.1 Please state the total amount of such “additional funding” provided by the Respondent in this respect to-date.
2.1.1.2 Please confirm whether the Respondent will recover or seek reimbursement of such “additional funding” from AT. If so, please state the amount of such “additional funding” which is on top of the loan to AT as stated in Part 2.9 of the Respondent’s Form E (with a copy of the relevant payment note provided in Annexure 13).
2.1.2 The Petitioner understands that AT and his wife SL had defaulted in paying the membership fees/contributions payable by them from time to time from August 2014 onwards and that the Respondent had paid off such outstanding sums on their behalves at least on one occasion whereon he paid an amount of around HK$400,000.00.
2.1.2.1 Please state the total amount of outstanding membership fees/contributions payable by AT and SL respectively to-date.
2.1.2.2 Please state the total amount the Respondent had paid on behalf of AT and SL respectively to-date.
2.1.2.3 Please confirm whether the Respondent will recover or seek reimbursement from AT and/or SL of the said payment(s) made by the Respondent on their behalves.
2.1.2.4 The Petitioner understands that the said outstanding sums paid by the Respondent on behalf of AT and SL are on top of the loan from the Respondent to AT as stated in Part 2.9 of his Form E (with a copy of the relevant payment note provided in Annexure 13) because the said loan was incurred in the period from November 2009 to July 2014. Please confirm the same.”
My Views
23.Questions 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 basically concerns with the business dealings between the husband and his business partner AT and AT’s wife, SL. In previous answers, the husband stated that he has provided additional funding for S to cover short payment/contribution by AT. This is why the wife would like to have further information and follow up questions.
24.Under normal circumstances, I would not order further discovery on business dealings between business partners, especially when that information can be found in the audited reports of the company. However, I do note that although the husband and AT are equal shareholders and directors of S, the husband has in fact paid additional funding into S in order to cover the short payment by AT. Prima facie, this calls for an explanation and the wife is entitled to request further information in that regard. Therefore, I will allow questions 2.1.1 and 2.1.2.
Question 2.1.3
25.The next question is 2.1.3:
“2.1.3 In respect of the item “Unit Fund income” under “Promotion income” in Annexure 39,
2.1.3.1 Please state if all membership fees and/or contributions due from all agents have been fully paid by the respective agents to-date and provide documentary proof thereof.
2.1.3.2 If there is/are any outstanding amount(s) to-date, please state (i) the amount(s); (ii) the name(s) of the agent(s) who has defaulted in payment; (iii) the duration(s) for which the payment(s) has/have been outstanding; (iv) how are these outstanding amount(s) reflected in the audited financial statements of S; (v) why the membership fees and/or contributions would be received by the directors on behalf of S instead of being directly paid to S; (vi) state the total amount of membership fees and/or contributions received respectively by the Respondent and AT on behalf of S; and (vii) state, out of the amount under (vi) above, the total amount that has not yet been paid by the Respondent and/or AT respectively to S.
2.1.3.3 Furthermore, if the Respondent has paid any membership fees and/or contributions on behalf of any agent(s) from the financial year ended 31 March 2014 onwards, please state (i) the total amount(s) which remain(s) outstanding; (ii) the agent(s) on whose behalf the Respondent has paid membership fees and/or contributions; (iii) whether the Respondent intends to recover or seek reimbursement of such outstanding sums from the agent(s).”
My Views
26.Under this question, the wife requests information on the membership fees and/or contribution in respect of all agents to-date. She goes further in Question 2.1.3.2 to ask for details and identity of all the agents who has not made those fees or contributions.
27.As stated earlier, the husband has over 1,000 agents and requiring him to provide all those information concerning these 1,000 agents is, in my view, too onerous for him. Furthermore, I do not see the slightest evidence, at least at this stage, that the husband has made use of the agents’ membership fees and/or contribution to hide his assets.
28.The wife’s request under Question 2.1.3 is refused.
Question 2.1.4.4
29.The next one is Question 2.1.4.4:
“2.1.4 In respect of the item described as “Pattaya” of an amount of HK$469,442.00 under “Promotion expenses” provided in Annexure 39,
…
2.1.4.4 If the Respondent had made any payments in respect of the said trip, please state whether he has recovered or been reimbursed with the same yet, from whom, and in what amount(s). “
My Views
30.The original request from the wife was much wider but at the hearing, she seems to be contented with Question 2.1.4.4 only. I understand that with such reduction in scope, the husband is now willing to provide the information and I will say no more on this.
Question 3
31.The next is Question 3:
“3. Monies owed to the Respondent
3.1 In respect of the loan to AT
3.1.1The Respondent is again required to answer paragraphs 3.2.1.3 and 3.2.1.4 of the Petitioner’s 2nd Questionnaire.
3.2 In respect of the director’s loan to S
3.2.1 As the Respondent has been advancing substantial funding to S on a yearly average of HK$1,500,000.00 (as stated under paragraph 5.5(2) of his Form E) to support the insurance team under him in order to produce his income (as stated under paragraph (IV) on page 18 of the Respondent’s answers filed on 5th August 2016), the Petitioner is entitled to know the identities of all insurance agents who are funded and supported by the Respondent with a view to verifying the purported basis of his advancing substantial funding to S and ascertaining whether the Respondent has been generating override payment or any other income from such agents as alleged. Therefore, the Petitioner repeats her request that the Respondent is required to identify the names of persons in the Respondent’s insurance team to whom the Respondent has provided funding within the last 2 years and explain (with documentary evidence) any monetary or contractual arrangements, if any, between the Respondent and the said persons.
3.2.2 It is stated in Part 2.12 of the Respondent’s Form E that the Respondent has the benefit of a pension scheme described as “M Deferred Account” with a value of HK$5,469,214.79 on 29th January 2016 (as shown in Annex 2.12 to the Form E). The Respondent is required to provide copy(ies) of the relevant agreement(s) entered into with M in respect of the said “M Deferred Account”.”
My Views
32.Question 3.1.1 is a request for the husband to answer an earlier Questionnaire (2nd Questionnaire) of the wife. That is not a very helpful way to put forward one’s request for the court’s adjudication. In order to have an understanding of the original question, it is necessary to recite the relevant part of the 2nd Questionnaire here:
“3.2.1.3 Apart from the repayment stated in the Respondent’s answer under paragraph (b)(6) on page 11, please (1) state the total amounts of any other repayments received by the Respondent from AT; (ii) identify the accounts(s) into which such other repayment(s) (if any) was/were deposited; and (iii) supply documentary evidence, such as the relevant bank statement with the relevant entry(s) thereon identified, in support.
3.2.1.4 Please (i) state the total amount owed by AT to the Respondent on the date hereof for the funding of S and other sums owed by AT for any other purposes; (ii) explain the agreement or understanding between the Respondent and AT on the future sharing of expenses, losses and profits of S.”
33.As far as paragraph 3.2.1.3 of the 2nd Questionnaire is concerned, the wife is making the request based on an assumption that there must be other repayments. In my view, that is pure fishing which is not allowed. Such request is refused.
34.As to paragraph 3.2.1.4, I understand that there may be money owed by AT to the husband for the funding of S, a request for an update of the total amount owing may not be unreasonable. Apart from this, the rest of the Question is, in my view, purely fishing and should not be allowed. Therefore, for the purpose of paragraph 3.2.1.4 of the 2nd Questionnaire, I will only order the husband to state the total amount owed by AT to the husband up to the date of this order for the funding of S. The rest of that request is refused.
35.As to Question 3.2.1 concerning with the husband’s director’s loans to S, the wife wants a list of all those agents who have been provided with funding in the past 2 years and an explanation of the monetary or contractual arrangements with those agents. I note that such director’s loans were well documented in the financial statements of S which form part of the husband’s assets. I do not see any need to investigate into the name and details of those agents. This request is therefore refused.
36.As to Question 3.2.2, the wife is asking for document evidencing the “M Deferred Account” which forms part of the husband’s pension scheme. I accept that this is reasonable request with which the husband has to comply.
Question 4.2
37.The next question is 4.2:
“4.2 In respect of the Loans owed to United Asia Finance Limited
4.2.1Please state by what means, whether it was by cash, cheque or otherwise, the Respondent advanced a loan of HK$500,000.00 to his sister as stated in his answer to paragraph 5.2.1.2 of the Petitioner’s 2nd Questionnaire.
4.2.2In respect of the balance of HK$500,000.00 out of the loan which the Respondent alleged to have been kept by him for personal cash flow,
4.2.2.1 Please state whether the said balance was kept by the Respondent in cash or deposited wholly or partly into bank account(s).
4.2.2.2 For such amount out of the said balance which was kept by the Respondent in cash, please state with documentary proof (i) the amount that remained unspent; (ii) the amount that was spent and the purpose(s) of the spending.
4.2.2.3 For such amount out of the said balance which was deposited by the Respondent into bank account(s), please (i) identify the bank account(s); and (ii) provide copy(ies) of the relevant statement(s) of such bank account(s) showing the relevant deposits.”
My Views
38.The question was based on a loan taken out by the husband from the United Asia Finance Limited in the sum of $1,000,000, out of which a sum of $500,000 was paid to his sister. The wife wants to know the details of this arrangement.
39.A $1,000,000 loan is not a small amount. I see nothing wrong for the wife is requesting further information for the purpose of verification. The wife’s request is allowed.
Question 4.3.3
40.The next question is 4.3.3:
“4.3.3 In respect of the Respondent’s answer to paragraph 5.3.3 of the Petitioner’s 2nd Questionnaire and Annexure 45,
4.3.3.1 The cheque deposit advice annexed to the said email dated 5th January 2016 shows that a cheque for the amount of HK$510,000.00 was drawn on a Hang Seng Bank Account which appears to be No. 014-XXX-XXXXXX-XXX. Please state whether the Respondent is the holder of the said account. If so, please provide bank statements of the said account for the months of February 2014 to January 2016. If not, please state the name of the holder of the said account and why the expenses of S were paid for by that account holder.”
My Views
41.This question concerns with the fact that a cheque in the sum of $510,000 was deposited into a Hang Seng Bank account. In the question, the account number was quoted as 200-XXXXXX-XXX, but it is now clarified to be 024-XXX-XXXXXX-XXX. It is also confirmed to be a current account of S. In view of the sum involved and the previous confusion on the account number, I do not think the request for information on this account, especially the bank statements is unreasonable. Therefore, I will order the husband to provide the information as requested.
Question 5
42.The next are Questions 5.1 and 5.2:
“5. The Respondent’s Income
5.1 In respect of the Respondent’s Statement of Agent’s Account requested under paragraph 6.1 of the Petitioner’s 2nd Questionnaire, the Petitioner maintains the view that the Respondent should provide a complete set of the said Statement as she is entitled to the same as of right. Further, the same is necessary for the Petitioner to obtain a more complete and clearer picture of the Respondent’s financial position and future earning capacity for the following reasons:-
(i) Under paragraph 5.5(3)(i) of the Form E, the Respondent stated that a major portion of his income is derived from override payment linked to AT and BL and he claimed that override payments from these two agents will cease in December 2019 and June 2021 respectively. In his Statement of Proposal lodged with the Court on 30th September 2016, he also claimed that override payments from AT and BL represented about 60% and 20% of his monthly income. The Petitioner will need to verify the Respondent’s allegation that he will lose a substantial part of his income from 2019/2021 onwards by considering the significance of the amounts of override payments received from AT and BL and any observable trend in such amounts.
(ii) The Schedule of Manager’s Override (provided in Annexure 47) shows that the Respondent’s entitlement to Agent Development Override and Manager Development Override is at rates varying and depending on the servicing year and core production of his downline/reporting agents, and a complete set of the Statements will enable the Petitioner to ascertain the amount of override payments that the Respondent can receive in the future.
5.2 Therefore, the Respondent is again requested to provide a full and complete set of the Respondent’s Statement of Agent’s Account (i) for the months from February 2015 to January 2016 to complete the Statements previously provided in Annexure 21; and (ii) for the past 12 months (i.e. for the months from March 2016 to February 2017).In respect of the Respondent’s answer to paragraph 6.3.1 of the Petitioner’s 2nd Questionnaire, the Petitioner is aware that the practice of M is to require its agents to enter into new agreements upon promotion which set out the new terms of engagement, including but not limited to commission structure, loans and all benefits in kind, perks, share option schemes, medical insurance, etc.) or at least issue letters or documents setting out such new terms of engagement. Therefore, the Petitioner is of the view that there must be agreements made between the Respondent and M or any other documents setting out the terms of his engagement as SRD and ERD in or around September 2012 and May 2016 respectively and repeats her request for the Respondent to produce the same.
My Views
43.My first comment is that this question, like previous ones, is a very badly drafted question. It looks more like a written submission than a question or request for information. It requires a lot of effort to read into the question and previous questions before one can have some ideas on what she is talking about. Be that as it may, I think it is important to look at the substance of the request, instead of form. Doing the best as I could, I think the wife is now asking for “a full and complete set of the [husband]’s Statement of Agent Account” from February 2015 to February 2017 and the agreements signed between him and M (Question 5.2).
44.It is not in dispute that by nature of the husband’s business, a very substantial part of his income comes from the override payments he received from his down-line agents. The husband is now claiming that a substantial part of his income will be lost by 2019/2021 when 2 major sources of his override income (i.e. from AT and BL) will cease. This will have an important bearing on his future earning capacity and the wife cannot be criticized for seeking more information on the Statement of Agent ‘s Account. As to the agreements signed between M and the husband, I agree that they will throw lights on how the income of the husband will be calculated and is therefore relevant to his present earnings or future earning capacity. I will allow Questions 5.1 and 5.2.
Questions 5.3 and 6.2
45.The last 2 questions are 5.3 and 6.2:
“5.3 In respect of the Macau team named “SW”, the Respondent is required to:-
5.3.1 State, with supporting documentary evidence, the number of down-line and/or reporting (whether direct or indirect) insurance agents and/or financial planners of the Respondent who have conducted insurance business in Macau, whether on a full-time basis or on a part-time basis (the “Macau Agents”) from February 2014 up to the date hereof.
5.3.2 State, with supporting documentary evidence, the total amount of override payments and/or any other income the Respondent has derived in respect of the sale of insurance products and/or any other activities of the Macau Agents, whether personally or through his business partners/entities (including but not limited to AT, S and/or SW) from February 2014 to-date.
5.3.3 State, with supporting documentary evidence, the total amount of expenses incurred by the Respondent in respect of the said Macau team, including but not limited to trainings and monetary incentives/awards, and any arrangements between the Respondent and his business partners/entities in respect of the sharing of funding responsibilities in respect of the same from February 2014 to-date.
…
6.2 In respect of the new company NQC,
6.2.1 Please provide the following details together with documentary evidence in support thereof:-
6.2.1.1 The extent of the Respondent’s shareholding/beneficial interest in the NQC and the current value thereof;
6.2.1.2 Whether the Respondent is a director of the NQC.
6.2.2 Please provide documentary evidence of all arrangements entered into by the Respondent with AT and/or any other business partners in respect of the NQC and the WeChat promotional campaign or any other business dealings alleged or proposed to be carried out by or through the NQC. Such arrangements or agreements (whether written or oral) include but are not limited to those in relation to the sharing of funding responsibilities and sharing of profits.
6.2.3 Please provide copies of the audited/unaudited financial statements or (if there is no audited/unaudited financial statements) the management accounts of the NQC from the year in which it was established up to-date.”
My Views
46.There is no dispute that the husband has also maintained similar business in Macau and more recently in Shenzhen. Question 5.3 concerns with the Macau business and Question 6.2 concerns with the Shenzhen business.
47.My view is that the Macau business should be similar to that of e Hong Kong and with the same reasoning, I would allow Question 5.3.
48.As to the business in Shenzhen, I understand that it is a recent business venture under a company called 「前」. I agree that the wife should be entitled to information under Question 6.2.1 and 6.2.3. As to Question 6.2.2, I agree that it is purely fishing and should not be allowed.
Conclusions
49.Based on the above discussions, the questions that were allowed include:
(1) 1.5.1
(2) 2.1.1
(3) 2.1.2
(4) 2.1.4.4
(5) 3.1.1 (restricted to the money owed by AT)
(6) 3.2.2
(7) 4.2
(8) 4.3.3
(9) 5.1
(10) 5.2
(11) 5.3
(12) 6.2.1
(13) 6.2.3
Orders to be drawn up
50.Based on the above conclusions, I now request the parties to agree on the terms of the orders to be made within the next 14 days, failing which further directions can be sought from this court. The husband shall comply with the sealed order on discovery within 28 days from the service of the same on him.
Costs
51.Although the wife succeeds in some of her requests, but not all. Moreover, I am of the view that the bad drafting of the Questionnaire has also made the answering of those questions very difficult. Under these circumstances, a fair order should be no order as to costs including all costs reserved. This will be in the form of an order nisi to be made absolute after the expiry of 14 days from the handing down of this Decision.
| |
C. K. Chan |
| |
District Judge |
Representation:
Ms Bonnie Cheng, instructed by Messrs. Sit, Fung, Kwong & Shum, solicitors for the petitioner
Ms Queenie Ng, instructed by Messrs. Raymond Chan, Kenneth Yuen & Co., solicitors for the Respondent
|