Read the full judgment text of FCMC 2648/2018 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment was delivered on 23 April 2021 before District Judge S. Lo.
Matrimonial causes – Leave to appeal – District Court Ordinance s.63A(2) – Interim maintenance – Discharge of obligation – Reasonable prospect of success – Husband's finances – Stock trading profits – Material change of circumstances – Costs. Respondent (Wife) sought leave to appeal against decision dated 31 December 2020 discharging Husband's interim maintenance obligation. Original decision found Husband unable to pay due to material change in circumstances, specifically stock value zero. Wife argued insufficient regard to pre-petition finances, post-petition conduct, legal costs, fund withdrawals, and practical effect. Husband disclosed over 10,000 pages of documents regarding stock trading profits of around $2.7 million from 2011 to 2019. Wife had around $1.2 million cash in her bank. Court held no reasonable prospect of success as Wife failed to show Husband's disclosure deficient, stock value zero was material change, and no quantification of hidden funds. Application dismissed with costs against Wife. The Court applied the test under Section 63A(2) of the District Court Ordinance requiring reasonable prospect of success or other reasons in interest of justice. The Court found the Wife failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospect of success in her intended appeal and there was no other reason in the interests of justice why the appeal should be heard. The Court ordered costs of this application be paid by the Wife to be taxed, if not agreed. Ground 1 concerned pre-petition finances where Court found sufficient regard paid. Ground 2 concerned post-petition conduct where stock value zero was material change. Ground 3 concerned legal costs where court found interim purpose not appropriate for detailed investigation. Ground 4 concerned withdrawals and deposits where Wife failed to quantify hidden funds. Ground 5 concerned practical effect where Husband stopped payment since December 2019. The Court noted that granting interim maintenance is a discretionary exercise and under or over payment can be adjusted at final trial. The Court referred to Z v X [2015] 5 HKLRD 791 regarding quantification of hidden funds.
Legal issues: Leave to Appeal Application
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Cited by 1 case