Read the full judgment text of FCMC 9358/2018 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment was delivered on 27 January 2021 before Her Honour Judge Sharon D. Melloy.
Matrimonial Causes – Maintenance Pending Suit – Litigation Funding – Costs – District Court – Parties separated with multiple divorce proceedings in HK, Philippines and Nevada – Informal financial agreement disputed – Court determines reasonable MPS amount of HK$25,000 per month – Litigation funding contribution of HK$95,000 awarded – Costs follow event with indemnity basis from 16 March 2020 due to husband's litigation conduct – Wife's financial need assessed against husband's income – Husband's non-compliance with court directions considered in costs order – Decree absolute pending in Hong Kong divorce proceedings – Nevada divorce set aside – Bigamy allegations regarding subsequent marriage – Parties met in 2000 and married in 2003 – Husband initiated divorce in 2009 and 2016 – Wife issued divorce in 2018 – Decree nisi granted in 2019 – Wife claims inability to work due to US visa – Husband earns over HK$250,000 per month – Court finds wife's expenses reasonable but trimmed – Husband offered HK$10,000 per month which was rejected – Court orders backdated maintenance from November 2019 – Costs summary assessment ordered – Petitioner to seek permission from Nevada court for documents regarding son B – Application originally listed for February 2020 but adjourned due to GAP – Court directed paper disposal with strict submission limits – Husband failed to comply with length and filing directions – Court issued memos warning of consequences – Matter relisted for hearing in November 2020 – Court disappointed with litigation conduct – Costs indemnity basis from date directions made absolute – Petitioner's counsel Ms Madeleine Booth – Respondent's counsel Ms Sasha Allison – Order nisi made 16 March 2020 – Order absolute made 16 March 2020 – Hearing 2 November 2020 – Maintenance backdated to 1 November 2019 – Lump sum HK$350,000 for backdated maintenance – FDR hearing 2 February 2021 – Litigation funding HK$95,000 to solicitors – Wife's expenses included rent and utilities – Husband's expenses included mortgage and tax – Court considered reality of situation – No findings of fact at this juncture – Broad-brush basis applied – Section 3 of Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance Cap 192 applied
Legal issues: Maintenance Pending Suit Amount · Litigation Funding Contribution · Costs and Litigation Conduct
Outcome: Maintenance pending suit granted; Litigation funding granted; Costs awarded to Petitioner