Nsk v. K, Rw
Read the full judgment text of FCMC 7594/2015 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment was delivered on 11 March 2020 before Her Honour Judge Sharon D. Melloy.
Variation of maintenance – Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance Cap. 192 s.11(7) – District Court – Whether maintenance should be reduced – Whether husband’s proposal accepted – Maintenance reduced to HK$40,000 per month – No order as to costs
Legal issues: Variation of maintenance amount · Acceptance of husband's proposal
Outcome: Maintenance reduced to HK$40,000 per month from 1 April 2020
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 1 case
|
FCMC 7594 / 2015 [2020] HKFC 56 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION MATRIMONIAL CAUSES NO 7594 OF 2015 ----------------------------
------------------------ Coram: Her Honour Judge Sharon D. Melloy in Chambers (Not open to public) Dates of Hearing: 30 and 31 October 2019 Written closing arguments submitted: 31 October 2019, 26 November 2019 and 2 December 2019 Date of Judgment: 11 March 2020 ----------------------- J U D G M E N T (Variation of maintenance) ----------------------- Introduction 1.This is an application by a Respondent husband to reduce the periodical payments payable to the wife from HK$100,000 to HK$30,000 per month. The husband’s summons to this effect, dated the 24 May 2019 states as follows:
In his closing submission the husband put forward a slightly modified proposal and suggested as follows:
2.This application arose out of this court’s judgment dated the 2 April 2019, which was in effect a delayed clean break order. I ordered that the husband do pay the wife HK$100,000 per month pending the payment of two lump sums, namely the sum of HK$3,282,910 to be paid upon the pronouncement of the decree absolute and a further sum as follows:
3.The judgment was crafted in this way so as to recognize the fact that the husband’s shares were inextricably bound to his position as the CEO of a publicly listed company and selling the shares in question was likely to be difficult – certainly before his retirement. It also recognized the fluctuating nature of the share price. 4.In so far as the maintenance was concerned I ordered as follows:
5.Up until that point the husband had been paying for the wife’s rental, utilities and other items by way of an undertaking, plus an allowance of HK$30,000 per month. At paragraph 108 of the judgment I set out my reasoning as follows:
6.In considering the division of assets I also said as follows:
7.This was a difficult trial and reference should be made to the entire judgment dated the 2 April 2019 when considering this current judgment. For the avoidance of doubt I stand by all the findings and comments made in the original judgment. In particular there were issues with respect to the wife’s litigation conduct, which I summarized at paragraph 110 of the judgment as follows:
In contrast I found the husband to be generally credible. The issues 8.The issue then is whether or not the maintenance payable to the wife should be reduced and if so to what amount. Alternatively should the husband’s subsequent proposal be accepted? The law Variation of maintenance 9.The husband’s application to vary is made pursuant to section 11 (7) of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance Cap. 192, which provides that:
10.It is accepted that in considering a change of circumstances, I may look at the case de novo. In other words, the court is not necessarily fettered by the existence of a previous order. I may look at the situation afresh and make an order based on the parties’ existing financial circumstances. (See Ch 3.131 Jackson’s Matrimonial Finance and Taxation, 7th edition). It is also true that there would normally be a reason for the application to vary or what some might call a “trigger”. 11.The court has a very wide power, including a power to terminate payments and to backdate the variation ordered. The overall objective is to achieve a fair outcome (see M v M, FCMC 4070 of 1990, dated 12 May 2006, unreported). Discussion Should the maintenance payable to the wife be reduced and if so to what amount? Alternatively, should the husband’s subsequent proposal be accepted? 12.The original basis for the husband’s application is that his salary had been reduced by half to HK$144,690 per month (inclusive of housing). This was because of the company’s poor performance and is based on its quarterly results. The difficulty is that this payment may fluctuate and that if the company does better then the husband is likely to be paid his full salary of HK$240,000 per month plus housing etc. It follows that he is also likely to be receiving dividend payments if the company is doing well. By the time that the matter came on for hearing the husband confirmed in the witness box that he would be receiving his full salary for the next three months. He had received the reduced salary previously. 13.The wife tried to show that this was a sham and that in any event the husband had far greater financial resources open to him than she did. For the avoidance of doubt I do not accept that the husband’s original reduction in salary was a sham. I also accept the documents produced by him which confirmed the original reduction in salary. 14.Both parties produced up to date Form E’s but unfortunately both were of limited value. The husband did not fully itemize his schedule of outgoings, but confirmed some of the general expenses in the witness box. He said his partner was responsible for taking care of the general expenses. In any event he said that he needed at least HK$100,000 per month to cover his basic expenses and those of his son and partner. He also remains concerned about his ability to provide for his family longer term. It also seems from the schedule that he is continuing to support the elder daughter by this marriage, KE. His schedule of outgoings is then as follows:
15.The wife for her part also did not fully itemize her expenses and it transpired later that the list of expenses set out in the Form E was not based on her current expenditure. The wife confirmed that she is not living permanently in Hong Kong and that she stays with a friend when she is visiting. She lives in Malaysia otherwise. From the bank and credit card statements produced the husband was able to show that based on that evidence she appears to be currently spending just over HK$30,000 per month. Consequently, she is saving the remainder of the maintenance payments. The wife also confirmed that she has no other income save for the maintenance received from the husband and she reiterated that she had no other bank accounts other than as produced. She confirmed that the list of expenses set out in her Form E was based on a lifestyle that she aspired to. Decision 16.I have considered the alternative proposal put forward by the husband, but it seems to me that the mechanism proposed may turn out to be quite complicated in practice and I am conscious of the continuing high level of conflict that continues to exist between the parties. The wife owns one property outright in Malaysia and she also owns two other apartments there jointly with the daughter. Consequently, I accept that she has somewhere to live in Malaysia and that she is now more likely than not to be basing herself there. The cost of living is lower in Malaysia and I accept that she has not been spending the maintenance that was originally ordered. I also accept that this has at times caused significant difficulty for the husband. In such circumstances I shall reduce the maintenance to HK$40,000 per month. I shall not backdate it. The monies accumulated by the wife shall provide her with a further financial cushion. I also accept that she should be able to live very comfortably on this sum in Malaysia. In so far as the husband is concerned this is a little more than he says that he can afford when he is receiving a reduced salary. However, I am confident that he should be able to budget accordingly as his income fluctuates with the changing fortunes of the company. For the avoidance of doubt all other aspects of the original order shall remain in place. Order 17.Consequently I shall make an order as follows, order 4 contained in the court order dated the 2 April 2019 shall be varied in that the Respondent shall pay the Petitioner periodical payments in the sum of HK$40,000 per month with effect from the 1 April 2020 until payment of the lump sum referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the court order dated the 2 April 2019. There shall be no order as to costs.
The Petitioner and the Respondent both appeared in person | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under FCMC 7594/2015