Read the full judgment text of FCMC 11056/2017 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment was delivered on 4 March 2020 before His Honour Judge I Wong.
Family law – costs – variation of costs order – money-to-subject analysis – Calderbank offer – overall impression – District Court – Petitioner wife and Respondent husband divorced following trial on financial matters where costs order was no order as to costs – Husband applied to vary costs order arguing he was successful on main issues – Court held costs in family proceedings determined by overall impression not quantifiable subjects – Money-to-subject analysis rejected – Wife did not reasonably ought to have accepted husband's offers – Application dismissed – Husband to pay costs of application – Principles from Re Elgindata (No 2) and F v F (No 2) applied – Order 62 rule 5 RHC considered – Hartmann J's approach followed – Butler-Sloss LJ's principles in Gojkovic v Gojkovic referenced – Yuen JA's principles in L v C cited – Kwan JA and Cheung JA's views in TL v SN and Z v X & C reaffirmed – Ribeiro PJ's telescoped approach in LKW v DD noted – Mostyn QC's criticism in GW v RW applied – W v K and Anor test for reasonableness of offers applied – Husband's argument that pre-marital assets and spousal maintenance were key issues rejected – Court found neither party overall winner in main trial – Husband's offers of $4,889,056.55 and $5,800,000 found insufficient to shift costs burden – Wife awarded 55% of matrimonial assets in main trial – Lump sum of $7,366,200 and child maintenance of $33,300 ordered – Costs of application to be taxed if not agreed
Legal issues: Variation of costs order · Money-to-subject analysis · Reasonableness of Calderbank offers
Outcome: Application for variation of costs order dismissed
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 3 cases