Klt also known as Klp v. Cp

FCMC 13969/2019

[2021] HKFC 102

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES

NO. 13969 OF 2019

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

Coram:  Her Honour Judge Sharon D. Melloy in Chambers (Not open to public)

Date of Trial:  18 March 2021

Date of closing written submission:  7 April 2021

Date of Judgment:  14 May 2021

________________________

J U D G M E N T

(Final orders for maintenance for the child of the family
and ancillary relief generally)

________________________

Introduction

1.This is an application by a Petitioner wife for a final order for maintenance for the only child of the family, C (she seeks no maintenance for herself)  and for a clean break otherwise.     

2.This case, which should have been relatively straightforward, has had a long and convoluted history, which has included extensive litigation in Dubai. The husband, an Italian lawyer practicing in Dubai, ultimately chose not to take part in the proceedings in Hong Kong. He said that he would not submit to the jurisdiction and eventually, in October 2020, said that he was disengaging entirely from the process. Notwithstanding that he sent a letter dated the 4 March 2021 to the court, which was shortly before the ancillary relief trial was due to take place, in which he made various statements with respect to his finances. For the avoidance of doubt the court intends to attach no weight to that letter. To that end it is of note that the husband has chosen not to comply with any court orders and to all intents and purposes has largely ignored the proceedings in Hong Kong. For example, he has not filed a financial statement Form E, despite being ordered to do so on at least three occasions. He also stopped paying a voluntary amount towards C’s expenses in June 2019, save for a 60% contribution towards her school fees. On the 25 November 2020 the court made an order that he pay interim maintenance for C in the sum of HK$36,120 per month. He has not complied with that order either. The wife now seeks final orders in relation to finances. Orders have already been made with respect to the marriage and C.

3.It is of note that the husband has said on various occasions that he wished to challenge the jurisdiction of the Hong Kong court but he did not issue any applications in that regard despite being told that this would be necessary. In any event, as an international lawyer of some note, there is no doubt that he would have been aware that this would be a necessary step and one that he ultimately chose not to take. I do not accept the suggestion that he tried to file but that he decided not to proceed when the system proved difficult. It is of note that at no point did he instruct lawyers to file any summons on his behalf.

Background to the marriage

4.The parties married on the XX October 2010 in California, USA. The wife is an American citizen and the husband is Italian. They met a few years prior to that, in 2008, when they were both working for the same law firm in Dubai. After their marriage they continued to reside in Dubai and on the XX January 2012, they had their only child C. C is now 9 years of age and she is currently attending a well-known international school in Hong Kong. C has both US and Italian citizenship. It seems that the marriage was short lived and that when the wife was offered an opportunity to work in Hong Kong it was agreed that she should relocate from Dubai to Hong Kong, with C. Consequently, on the 15 April 2013 she and C relocated to the territory by agreement. They have continued to live in Hong Kong on a permanent basis since that time. The wife has worked on a full-time basis throughout.

Background to the litigation

5.On the 26 November 2019 the wife issued a divorce petition in Hong Kong based on two year’s separation. On the 15 December 2019 the husband said that he would not submit to the jurisdiction of Hong Kong. At some point it seems that the husband had also issued proceedings for divorce in Dubai. A jurisdictional challenge then proceeded in Dubai with the wife stating that the courts there had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. (The wife was advised that the courts in Dubai could only exercise their jurisdiction if she was also resident in Dubai, which was clearly not the case.)  Several hearings then took place which culminated in a decision on the 7 May 2020, that under Sharia law a court in Dubai did have jurisdiction and a divorce was granted, subject to appeal. It is of note that neither party is a Muslim. The wife filed her Notice of Appeal on the 3 June 2020.

6.Meanwhile, in Hong Kong, the decree nisi was pronounced on the 9 June 2020. On the 22 June 2020 the court ordered that the wife be granted sole custody and care and control of C, with reasonable access to the husband. The decree absolute was pronounced on the 14 July 2020. On the 16 September 2020, it was specifically directed inter alia, that in the event that the husband wished to be heard on any matter, including jurisdiction, that he must file the appropriate summons at the Family Court Registry supported by an affidavit. Other directions were given with respect to the filing of affidavits and a Form E. A penal notice was also endorsed on that order. On the 24 September 2020 the husband was personally served with a copy of it.  

7.On the 30 September 2020 the courts in Dubai found initially that it did have the jurisdiction to deal with this matter. However, this was eventually overturned by a judgment from the Court of Cassation in Dubai on the 20 January 2021, which dismissed the husband’s divorce proceedings for want of jurisdiction. I am told that the Court of Cassation is similar to the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal. There is no ability to further appeal from this decision and this judgement now stands.

8.On the 25 November 2020 the court ordered that the husband pay interim maintenance for C in the sum of HK$36,120 per month with effect from the 1 December 2020. This sum was inclusive of the school fees and save for, I believe one or two payments of HK$15,000, it seems that this order has never been complied with.

The issues

9.The main issues to be determined then are these:

How much maintenance should the husband now pay as a contribution towards C’s expenses? What is the basis of that contribution and how should it be formulated?

Should there be a clean break between the parties?

The wife’s proposal

10.In her closing submission the wife revised her figures and made an open proposal as follows:

2.  On the day of the trial, the Wife revised her figures/proposal seeking an Order in respect of child maintenance as follows:

(1)  H to pay child maintenance in the sum of HK$48,159 per month until C reaches the age of 18 or completes full time education, whichever is later, or further order of the Court. This sum is comprised of the following:

(a)  60% of C’s school fees, inclusive of capital levy, being HK$10,809.6 per month (see Form E at [B/76]).

(b)  60% of C’s school bus fees, being HK$757.2 per month (Form E at [B/76]).

(c)  50% of C’s personal expenses of HK$18,239 per month (see Form E at [B/76]).

(d)  50% of C’s share of the household/general expenses (including rent, utilities, food etc.), being HK$18,353 per month (Form E at [B/75]).

3.  The Wife’s position seeking a clean break between the parties and costs of these proceedings remains unchanged.

4.  The figure of 60% for C’s school and bus fees is proposed as the Husband has historically agreed and paid for these expenses in this proportion; paragraph 2(a)  + paragraph 2(b)  = HK$11,567 per month.

5.  It is of note that the figure of HK$48,159 is only an increase of approximately HK$5,340 per month from the figure that the parties had previously agreed upon and which the Husband was willing to pay in the past of HK$42,818.5 (and had paid up until June 2019 before the instigation of divorce proceedings)  (see W’s Opening Submissions, §66). The Wife’s claim for child maintenance is reasonable in the circumstances.

As will be seen I largely agree with this proposal

The husband’s proposal

11.The husband made no formal proposal. Given the circumstances, and as I have said, given his non-compliance with all court orders, including the order for interim maintenance and multiple orders for disclosure, I attach no weight to his letter dated the 4 March 2021 and it will not be referred to in this judgment further.

The law on Ancillary Relief

12.The relevant law is reasonably straightforward. The Court of Final Appeal’s decision in LKW v DD (FACV no 16 of 2008)  13 HKCFA 537 sets out the approach that the lower courts must take when determining issues relating to the division of assets at a trial for final ancillary relief.

13.In that case, Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ identifies a five step approach to be adopted in such trials, which, for completeness sake I will summarize as follows:-

1)  The identification of the assets. It is of note that Mr Justice Ribeiro states that a broad-brush approach is generally considered sufficient for these purposes and that the assets should be valued as close to the date of the trial as possible. 

2)  An assessment of the parties’ financial needs

3)  Whether or not the sharing principle should be adopted?

4)  Whether or not there is a good reason to depart from an equal division of the assets?

5)  Deciding the outcome

14.The section 7 factors (s. 7 Matrimonial Property and Proceedings Ordinance, Cap 192)  are largely dealt with within this general framework. They are: -

(1)  It shall be the duty of the court in deciding whether to exercise its powers under section 4, 6 or 6A in relation to a party to the marriage and, if so, in what manner, to have regard to the conduct of the parties and all the circumstances of the case including the following matters, that is to say-

(a)  the income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources which each of the parties to the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;

(b)  the financial needs, obligations and responsibilities which each of the parties to the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;

(c)  the standard of living enjoyed by the family before the breakdown of the marriage;

(d)  the age of each party to the marriage and the duration of the marriage;

(e)  any physical or mental disability of either of the parties to the marriage;

(f)  the contributions made by each of the parties to the welfare of the family, including any contribution made by looking after the home or caring for the family;

(g)  in the case of proceedings for divorce or nullity of marriage, the value to either of the parties to the marriage of any benefit (for example, a pension)  which, by reason of the dissolution or annulment of the marriage, that party will lose the chance of acquiring.

15.However, in this instance the focus is on the appropriate level of maintenance to be paid for the child of the family, C, as opposed to any division of assets. As the wife is not seeking a division of assets or any maintenance for herself, not even nominal maintenance, it seems to me that there is no need to go through the steps identified in paragraph 13 above. Had the husband wished for a different outcome then he should have participated in the process. In that event he would also have needed to have made full and frank disclosure of his own financial position, which he has singularly failed to do. In such circumstances, if the outcome is not to his liking, then I am afraid he only has himself to blame.

Discussion

How much maintenance should the husband now pay as a contribution towards C’s expenses? What is the basis of that contribution and how should it be formulated?

16.I largely accept the wife’s proposal, i.e., that the husband should pay a 50% contribution towards C’s personal expenses and a 50% contribution towards C’s share of the household expenses. I also accept that it is fair and reasonable for the husband to pay 60% towards C’s school fees and school bus fees. It is of note that this is in line with the amount contributed by him in the past on a voluntary basis and is probably reflective of his superior earning capacity.

17.In the wife’s latest updated Form E filed just before the trial on the 25 February 2021, she sets out her general expenses as follows:

Part 4 Current Monthly Expenses

4.1 General

Item	Amount
Rent	HK$	54,000
Mortgage instalments	HK$
Utilities (electricity, gas, rates, telephone & water)	HK$	3,000
Management fees	HK$
Food	HK$	9,000
Household expenses (appliances - repair & replacement; cleaning supplies)	HK$	3,000
Car expenses	HK$
Insurance premia (Prudential domestic helper insurance plan, Zurich home insurance)	HK$	262
Domestic helper(s)	HK$	6,121
Other (specify):
Cat (HK$750); yearly helper ticket home (HK$229); yearly helper bonus (HK$00); helper quarantine costs in HK (HKD1,050)	HK$	2,529
Total monthly household expenses	HK$	77,912

18.The wife went through these expenses in the witness box. I should say at the outset that I found her to be a totally credible witness. Her general expenses were reasonable and devoid of the exaggeration that one often finds in these sorts of situations. She currently lives in the same apartment that she has always lived in since relocating to Hong Kong. It is a modest apartment in an older block. Her utility expenses were reasonable and I even found her food costs to be a bit on the low side. I will increase these to HK$12,000 per month. The only other alteration that I would make is to place the costs of the domestic helper under C’s direct expenses. I have also reduced the “Other” expenses slightly, by deleting the reference to the domestic helper’s quarantine costs, which hopefully will not be a recurrent expense. Thus, I accept that the wife has general expenses of just under HK$74,000 per month as set out below:

General

Item	Amount
Rent	HK$	54,000
Mortgage instalments	HK$
Utilities (electricity, gas, rates, telephone & water)	HK$	3,000
Management fees	HK$
Food	HK$	12,000
Household expenses (appliances - repair & replacement; cleaning supplies)	HK$	3,000
Car expenses	HK$
Insurance premia (Prudential domestic helper insurance plan, Zurich home insurance)	HK$	262
Domestic helper(s)
Other (specify):
Cat (HK$750); yearly helper ticket home (HK$229); yearly helper bonus (HK$00); helper quarantine costs in HK ( 0 )	HK$	1,479
Total monthly household expenses	HK$	73,741

19.Of these, I accept that half of them shall be attributable to C, or say HK$37,000 per month. Each parent shall be responsible for one half of these costs or say HK$18,500 per month each.

20.In addition C has other direct expenses as follows:

4.3 Children

Item	Amount
School fees (HKD$216,200 annual tuition and capital levy)	HK$	18,016
Extra tuition fees (approx HKD$12,520 for summer school sessions of 3 weeks)	HK$	1,043
School books and stationery	HK$	795
Transport to school (including school bus of HK$1,262 per month)  and taxis from after school activities/speech therapy)	HK$	1,653
Medical/Dental	HK$	2,500
Extra Curricular Activities (fees, uniform & equipment)	HK$	2,850
Entertainment / presents	HK$	975
Holidays	HK$	4,800
Clothing / Shoes	HK$	2,400
Insurance premia	HK$	0
Lunches and pocket money (HKD$35 per meal at school; HKD$40 pocket money)	HK$	740
Other Transport (taxis to activities/playdates)	HK$	3,250
Child-minding fees (average emergency care per year when helper sick)	HK$	525
Uniform	HK$	489
Others (specify):
4 sessions of speech therapy per month at Sprout (HK$5,400); Maggie & Rose membership (HK$ 2,190); brainpop learning app (HK$55); additional school costs such as photos, classroom parties, field trip etc (HK$600); summer camp activities (HK$625)	HK$	8,870
Total monthly expenses for children	HK$	48,906

21.I largely accept these expenses, to which the cost of the domestic helper shall be added in the sum of just over HK$6,000, making a total of just over HK$55,000 per month. (i.e., HK$48,906 + HK$6,121 = HK$55,027).

22.In a normal situation where both parents are actively involved in their child’s life and where they both take the child away on holidays, I might have removed the reference to holidays and entertainment and presents, accepting that each party should be responsible for their own costs associated with such things. I accept however, that in this instance this has become a point of contention as the wife has become concerned about C holidaying with her father in a non-Hague country particularly whilst the Dubai proceedings were ongoing. It is the wife’s case that the husband stopped making any contribution towards C’s costs when they had a disagreement about access. The wife was particularly concerned at the prospect of C travelling to Dubai without her. I accept that she was and is right to be concerned. It is also not known at this stage when normal travel might recommence given the difficulties caused by Covid 19. The wife said that she generally likes to return to the USA with C at least twice per annum to see her family, who are based in Alaska. It is also anticipated that the cost of travel might rise going forward. In such circumstances I shall neither reduce or increase these costs. I shall also allow HK$13,000 per month for all extra tuition fees, Extra Curricular Activities (ECA’s)  and related costs under “Other”. I have also deducted additional childminding fees as again this is unlikely to be a recurrent expense. Thus, in total the wife’s direct expenses for C amount to just under HK$55,000 (i.e. HK$54,739)  per month. I have marked with an * those expenses that should be split 50:50 and those with an ** that should be split on a 60:40 basis as follows:

Item	Amount
School fees (HKD$216,200 annual tuition and capital levy)	HK$	18,016**
Extra tuition fees, ECA’s and Others as set out below	HK$	13,000*
School books and stationery	HK$	795*
Transport to school (including school bus of HK$1,262 per month)  and taxis from after school activities/speech therapy)	HK$	1,262** 391*
Medical/Dental	HK$	2,500*
Extra Curricular Activities (fees, uniform & equipment)	HK$	See above
Entertainment / presents	HK$	975*
Holidays	HK$	4,800*
Clothing / Shoes	HK$	2,400*
Insurance premia	HK$	0
Lunches and pocket money (HKD$35 per meal at school; HKD$40 pocket money)	HK$	740*
Other Transport (taxis to activities/playdates)	HK$	3,250*
Child-minding fees (average emergency care per year when helper sick)	HK$
Uniform	HK$	489*
Domestic helper	HK$	6,121*
4 sessions of speech therapy per month at Sprout (HK$5,400); Maggie & Rose membership (HK$ 2,190); brainpop learning app (HK$55); additional school costs such as photos, classroom parties, field trip etc (HK$600); summer camp activities (HK$625)	HK$	See above
Total monthly expenses for child * **	HK$35,461 HK$19,278

23.Thus, the husband should be contributing say HK$30,000 for C’s direct expenses rounded up – i.e. ((50% x 35,461)  = 17,730 + (60% x 19,278)  = 11,567 = 29,297. Plus, HK$18,500 per month for her indirect expenses. This totals HK$48,500 per month inclusive of the school fees and is in keeping with the amount originally claimed in the sum of HK$48,159 per month.

Can the husband afford to pay this sum?

24.In the wife’s opening, Ms Booth said as follows of the husband’s earning capacity:

56. The Wife and the Husband have been separated for nearly 8 years and have lived apart in separate countries since. The Wife, unfortunately but predictably, does not have detailed documentation regarding the Husband’s current income and resources. However, certain assumptions and inferences may be drawn based on the information available to her, which is summarised as follows:

(1)  In 2012, the Wife recalls that while in Dubai the Husband was earning a base salary from X LLP of US$240,000 per annum (HK$1.8 million per annum, or HK$150,000 per month)  (W’s 4^th Affirmation [B/50/§35]). In addition, the Husband received a bonus of US$40,000 (HK$300,000)  per annum. The Husband has a strong earning capacity.

(2)  The Husband was, until recently, a Partner in Y and Private Equity at Z in Dubai, a globally leading Italian law firm [C/22]. Prior to this, the Husband was (from 2012)  a Partner at A Law Advisors (“"ALA”)  a Middle East boutique law firm, also in their Dubai office [C/29]. ALA integrated with Z in June 2018(W’s 4^th Affirmation [B/49/§31]). A news article states “the integration comes as a strategic move to further boost the firm’s ambitions to expand internationally.” [C/33] .

(3)  The Husband previously stated that in an email dated 26 December 2019 [C/9] that he was setting up his own law firm and had no income: “I will not be earning any salary from 1 January 2020, as I am about to depart from current employer. From January, I will actually have to make investments to set up a new law practice in Dubai and that will restrain even more my cash position.” The Husband provided no evidence as to what his income was prior to when he says he ceased work in January 2020.

A simple internet search conducted by the Wife (Exhibit KLT4-1)  [C/73] revealed, however, that the Husband is now a partner again in the Dubai office of B. It appears that ALA has since parted ways with Z (likely in December 2019). ALA is now an independent firm, operating with the original ALA partners the Husband has worked with since 2012(W’s 4^th Affirmation [B/49/§31]). This contradicts the Husband's position that he was setting up his own law firm from scratch. The Husband admits in his Letter that he has been earning an income ofHK$97,541 per month since he began working at ALA in January 2020 (elaborated below).

(4)  On 4 November 2020, the Husband wrote to the wife stating that he was earning only AED12,000 per month (HK$25,332)  (W’s 4^th Affirmation [B/50/§34]; H’s letter at [C/82/§§9-11]]). The Husband stated that “my employment contract is registered with the UAE authorities and is available for inspection” but no copy of this employment contract was provided.

The Wife does not believe, and it defies logic, that the Husband opted to stay in Dubai and take a position with income equating to only US$40,000 per year, which represented a very significant reduction from his previous salary over 8 years ago. It is also suspect that, as a partner in an international law firm, the Husband's salary is as low as he claims. Further, even if this were his actual base salary, as a partner, the Husband is entitled to a share in profits, which he has failed to disclose or refer to properly (W’s 4^th Affirmation [B/50/§36]).

Exhibit KLT4-3 [C/84] is an article in the National newspaper in Dubai using data from multiple recruiting agencies with a Dubai salary survey, published on 10 February 2021. It states that a Partner in private practice in Dubai could expect to earn a salary of between US$210,500 and US$300,000 per annum, exclusive of shares in partnership profits [C/90].

(5)  The Husband is also likely to have accumulated significant savings from accumulated income working as a partner for many years in Dubai, particularly as he does not pay any income or salaries tax (W’s 4^th Affirmation [B/51/§39]). The Husband’s Letter does not mention tax payments. His failure to provide corroborating or supporting bank statements is likely to avoid showing these savings.

25.These points were further expanded upon in the wife’s oral evidence and in Ms Booth’s closing. In summary I accept that the husband has a significant earning capacity and that he should therefore be in a position to contribute an appropriate amount towards his daughter’s expenses. As indicated above, I accept that an appropriate amount should be a 50% contribution towards her direct expenses and a 50% share of her part of the general household expenses, plus a 60% contribution towards her school fees and related education costs including the capital levy and school bus fees.

Back payment

26.It is the wife’s case that the husband stopped contributing towards C’s additional ECA’s in January 2019 and that he stopped making any contribution at all (save for a contribution towards the schooling costs)  in June 2019. This is completely unacceptable and the husband must have known it. In such circumstances I accept that it is entirely appropriate for this order to be back dated to June 2019, credit to be given for any payments made with respect to schooling or otherwise.

Should there be a clean break between the parties?

27.The wife requests a clean break. Given the circumstances this seems reasonable and I should say at the outset that I intend to accede to her request in this respect. In considering this account has also been taken of the s.7 factors as set out below.

The s. 7 factors

(a)  the income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources which each of the parties to the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;

28.The wife works for a well-known international law firm in Hong Kong in a business development role. She currently earns a basic salary of HK$196,000 per month gross. She is also entitled to a discretionary bonus. As an American citizen she is subject to US tax and a mandatory MPF contribution is also deducted from her salary. Her overall tax rate is 35%.

29.The wife currently has assets of approximately HK$10.4 million, much of which is tied up in life insurance policies and pensions. She holds about HK$4 million in liquid assets. I note that she has had considerable legal costs to pay in two jurisdictions since this litigation began, with little prospect of recovering those monies from the husband any time soon. She says that she has been unable to save since the commencement of these proceedings. I accept what she says in this respect.

30.The husband’s true position is largely unknown. However, I accept the submissions made by Ms Booth in this respect as set out in paragraphs 24 and 25 above. Thus, it seems to me that it can be safely said that the husband has a significant earning capacity and one that is likely to be greater than the wife’s. I also accept that he is likely to be the beneficial owner of a number of assets including some real estate in Dubai.

(b)  the financial needs, obligations and responsibilities which each of the parties to the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;

31.It seems likely that the wife will continue to be primarily responsible for C’s needs. It is unknown at present to what extent the husband will comply with this order.

(c)  the standard of living enjoyed by the family before the breakdown of the marriage;

32.The parties enjoyed a very comfortable standard of living whilst living in Dubai. The wife summarizes this in her latest Form E as follows:

5.3  Give brief details of the standard of living enjoyed by you and your spouse during the marriage (e.g. size of home, clubs, holidays per year, domestic helper(s)).

We lived in a substantial 3 bedroom apartment in Dubai, 2100 square feet, with balcony and full frontal view of the Burj Khalifa in downtown Dubai. We had two 4×4 vehicles housed in an on-site garage. The building had full facilities including swimming pool, gym and kids playroom. The apartment was centrally located and only a 10 min drive to both our places of employment.

A live in domestic helper was employed full-time one month prior to our daughter’s birth and I continue to have a helper here in Hong Kong.

We enjoyed multiple holidays each year during the marriage both within the UAE and also including trips abroad to the US, Canada, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Oman, Tunisia, Morocco, Lebanon, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Nepal.

33.However, the parties have been living apart for a considerable period of time and in the intervening period the wife has maintained a consistent but not overly lavish lifestyle in Hong Kong. The husband’s current standard of living is largely unknown.

(d) the age of each party to the marriage and the duration of the marriage;

34.  The husband is now 45 years of age and the wife is 44. They have been married for nearly 11 years but they only lived together as man and wife for approximately 2 ½ years. This is then, by any definition, a relatively short marriage that produced one child.

(e)  any physical or mental disability of either of the parties to the marriage;

35.This does not appear to be an issue. On a slightly different note, C appears to have some minor learning issues and she currently requires extra assistance with phonics and writing.

(f)  the contributions made by each of the parties to the welfare of the family, including any contribution made by looking after the home or caring for the family;

36.The wife has been wholly responsible for looking after C since separation. She was also largely responsible for doing so prior to that.

37.Initially the husband made some contribution towards C’s expenses by agreement. From about July 2013, he paid the wife US$1,961 per month, which increased to US$3,000 in late 2013 and then again to US$3,500 (HK$27,300)  from about July 2014. Although this fluctuated a little from time to time this sum stayed pretty constant until C began school in August 2016. At that stage it was agreed that the husband would cover 60% of C’s school fees and 60% of her school bus fees, plus HK$24,551 per month for her monthly support – i.e., a total figure at that time of just over HK$42,800 per month. In addition, he has also contributed towards her extra-curricular activities (ECA’s). As I have said this stopped in January 2019. He stopped making any payments at all, save for a 60% contribution towards the school fees, in June 2019. The litigation in both jurisdictions began shortly thereafter.

(g)  the value to either of the parties to the marriage of any benefit (for example, a pension)  which, by reason of the dissolution or annulment of the marriage, that party will lose the chance of acquiring.

38.This does not appear to be of particular import given the circumstances of this particular case.

Final Decision and Costs

39.I have no doubt that this litigation, conducted as it was, concurrently in two jurisdictions, has placed the wife under enormous strain. It is not quite clear why the husband chose to behave in the manner that he did, or for what purpose, given that the final result is not very different from the approach originally taken by the parties themselves. The financial cost to the wife has been enormous. In such circumstances it seems to me that the husband’s litigation conduct warrants sanction by way of an adverse costs order. I shall therefore make an order nisi to be made absolute in 14 days’ time that the husband do pay the costs of and arising out of the ancillary relief proceedings on an indemnity costs basis, to be taxed if not agreed. There shall be certificate for counsel.

Order

40.Thus the court order shall read as follows:

UPON HEARING Counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondent being absent.

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1)  The Respondent do pay to the Petitioner periodical payments for the child of the family, C in the sum of HK$48,500 per month, with effect from the 1 June 2021, until the child reaches the age of 18 years or ceases full time education whichever is the later or until further order, such sum to be backdated to June 2019, credit to be given for any payments made by the Respondent during the period from the 1 June 2019 to the 1 May 2021, including any contribution made towards C’s school fees and school bus fees.

2)  Each party’s claims against the other for all forms of ancillary relief shall be dismissed upon the making of this order.

3)  There shall be an order nisi to be made absolute in 14 days’ time that the husband do pay the costs of and arising out of the ancillary relief proceedings on an indemnity costs basis, to be taxed if not agreed. There shall be certificate for counsel.

Ms. Madeleine Booth instructed by Withers appeared for the Petitioner

The Respondent was not represented and did not appear