Yyt v. Ccm and Others
Read the full judgment text of FCMC 4498/2016 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment was delivered on 6 October 2023 before Her Honour Judge Elaine Liu.
Matrimonial causes – costs – variation of costs order nisi – preliminary issue proceedings – beneficial ownership of assets – Order 62 rule 5 – costs follow event – issue-based approach – Petitioner succeeded on Assets 2 and 3 claims for inclusion in matrimonial assets – Petitioner deprived of part of costs for defective pleadings on Matrimonial Pot and common intention constructive trust – Costs reduced to 30% payable by Respondents – Petitioner ordered to pay Respondents' costs of application HK$95,000
Legal issues: Success on Assets 2 and 3 claims · Deprivation of costs for failed issues
Outcome: Costs Order Nisi varied. W's costs reduced to 30% payable by Rs. W to pay Rs costs of application HK$95,000.
Cited by 5 cases · Cites 9 cases
|
FCMC 4498 / 2016 [2023] HKFC 201 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION MATRIMONIAL CAUSES NO. 4498 OF 2016 ----------------------------
----------------------------
_____________________________________ DECISION ______________________________________ A. Rs’ Application 1.On 31 October 2022, this court handed down a judgment (“Judgment”) [1] after a 9-day trial on preliminary issue with a costs order nisi (“Costs Order Nisi”) to the effect that Rs pay 70% of W’s costs of the preliminary issue proceedings on a party and party basis with certificate for two counsel. 2.Rs seek to vary the Costs Order Nisi to either:
3.The definitions and abbreviations used in the Judgment are adopted in this decision. B. Brief Background 4.The parties were in dispute on the beneficial ownership of 3 groups of properties (collectively “Disputed Assets”):
5.W argued at the trial that it was the common intention and/or mutual understanding of R1 and her that they shall be the equal beneficial owners of the “family business” set up and operated by them. The “family business” includes the Companies. The Disputed Assets were acquired with the funds of or generated from the “family business”. Her primary case was that R1 and W have the beneficial interests of the Disputed Assets in equal shares. Alternatively, if Assets 1 and 2 were “made out of” H’s own money, W shall have beneficial interest in those properties to an extent to be assessed in due course[2]. In respect of Assets 1 and 3, W relied on the operation of common intention constructive trust and/or resulting trust[3]. In respect of Assets 2, W relied on the operation of resulting trust only[4]. 6.Rs relied on the principle of equity interest follows the legal title. They maintained that beneficial ownership of the Disputed Assets vested in the legal owners. Those legal owners who had not provided financial contribution to the acquisition of the properties acquired a specific proportion of the beneficial interests by way of gift from R1. There is no dispute that R3 to R5 had made no financial contribution to the respective assets. Rs failed to prove their assertion that R2 had financially contributed to the acquisition of Assets 2. 7.After trial, this court dismissed W’s claim on Assets 1. H’s evidence on the use of House D44 was also rejected.[5] Rs’ case on Assets 2 and 3 failed. It was found that by operation of resulting trust, Assets 2 and 3 were/are beneficially owned by H[6]. C. Legal Principles 8.It is not in dispute that the court has an unfettered discretion in the determination of costs. This discretion must be exercised judicially. In exercising the discretion, Order 62 rule 5(1) sets out special matters to be taken into account by the court. These include,
9.Order 62 rule 5(2) further provides that the “conduct of the parties” include:
10.After the implementation of the Civil Justice Reform, the well-known principles in Re Elgindata (No. 2) were modified. The proposition of costs follow the event operates as a starting point, but not as a general rule. The unsuccessful party has the burden of showing that a different approach should be adopted. 11.In Hung Fung Enterprises Holdings Ltd v Agricultural Bank of China[7], Kwan JA held that:
12.Rs invited this court to adopt an issue-based approach. They cited KJ v KMLM[8], per To J,
13.On an issue-based approach, the practice commonly adopted is to make a global order in terms of the overall percentage of costs to be awarded to one side instead of giving separate orders for different issues: Keen Lloyd Holdings Ltd & Ors v Commissioner of Customs and Excise[9] and Hung Sau Fung v Lai Ping Wai[10]. 14.The credibility of the witnesses and conduct of the parties in regard to the case they allege and seek to prove is a relevant matter for a judge to take into consideration in dealing with costs: Hung Fung Enterprises Ltd v Agricultural Bank of China, supra [104(4)]. 15.In Zhuhai International Container Terminals (Jiuzhou) Limited v Lo Tong Hoi[11], Kwan JA said that:
16.Rs also referred to Lui Ming Lok v Ng Im Fong Loretta, the executrix of the estate of Lui Kwan Cheung, Deceased under the Grant of Probate No. HCAG016896/2015[12], and Siu Shu Ching and others v Siu Kwok Cheung and Anor[13], in which the above principles were applied. D. Rs’ Grounds for Variation 17.Rs first advanced that they are the only successful party in the preliminary issue proceedings, because they succeeded in Assets 1 claim and, Rs argued, no party succeeded in the claims on Assets 2 and 3. 18.Rs’ second ground was that W shall be deprived of her costs or part of it because she had unnecessarily, improperly and/or unreasonably took and maintained the following points which unduly complicated and prolonged the proceedings, time and costs had been wasted[14]:
E. Decision 19.There are two issues in this application. Firstly, whether W succeeded on Assets 2 and 3 claims. Secondly, whether W shall be deprived of her costs or part of it for failure in four identified areas which were said to have unduly complicated and prolonged the proceedings. 20.Before I consider the first issue, it is useful to repeat that the preliminary issue trial was to establish the extent of the assets to be considered in the ancillary relief proceedings, and was pendent on the ancillary relief proceedings. The effect of the court’s finding on the beneficial ownership of Assets 2 and Assets 3[15] was that these assets would be included as part of the matrimonial assets in the ancillary relief dispute. On this, W succeeded although the court did not accept the other part of her case that she was one of the beneficial owners. Whether W would be entitled to any interests or shares in these properties on divorce would be one of the issues to be determined in the ancillary relief dispute. 21.Pursuant to Order 62 rule 5(1)(f), the court may take into account the factor that a party has succeeded on part of his case, even if he has not been wholly successful. 22.Rs referred this court to FWY v TYCY[16] in which it was found that all parties are unbelievable witnesses. HHJ I Wong took the view that none of the parties can be considered as successful in terms of each of their cases, the litigation could be avoided if the parties were not led by greed, and they should take the consequences for not being truthful. An order nisi that there be no order as to costs was made in the third party ownership dispute. 23.FWY v TYCY is different from the present case. Here, this court only found that H is not a reliable witness. W successfully established her case that R5 is holding R5’s Shares as nominee only and a resulting trust arose. In a similar vein, R2 to R4 held/are holding Assets 2 as nominee only. Although this court did not find for W’s claim on direct beneficial interest in R5’s Shares, whether she has an indirect beneficial interest in R5’s Shares (which is not within the scope of the preliminary issue proceedings) is a live issue. See [136] of the Judgment. 24.As to the second issue, the starting point of costs follow the event does not cease to apply because the successful party failed on issues or allegations raised by him. If these issues have caused a significant increase in the length or costs of the proceedings, the court may exercise the discretion to deprive the successful party of his costs or part of it. It is not necessary to show that the successful party have acted unreasonably or improperly nor that he has deliberately wasted the time and costs. The court shall evaluate the entirety of the case in the exercise of discretion. 25.The issue on accounting practice was raised by Rs in their pleadings. This evidence is essential for H to establish his own case that the funds used to purchase Assets 2 were his own funds although they were mostly drawn from the Companies, the funds drawn were recorded in the Companies’ accounting documents, and H has to repay them to the Companies. I do not see any basis to deprive W from any part of her costs for the time spent on the evidence on the accounting practice. It may create unnecessary complication and unfairness if, in the award of costs, the court is to separately consider the success of proving each and every category of the evidence that are not improperly or unnecessarily raised. 26.W’s allegation in connection with D Limited was premised on a wrong factual basis. The time spent on this point did not cause a significant increase in the length or costs of the proceedings. 27.Substantial amount of time was spent in W’s failed arguments on the Matrimonial Pot Issue and her defective pleadings on the common intention constructive trust claims. These two matters had been dealt with extensively in [56] to [72], and [86] to [110] of the Judgment. The time and costs spent on these arguments could be avoided if care had been taken to make sure that the pleadings were properly drafted and did not go beyond the scope of the preliminary issue proceedings. Although W lost the claims on Assets 1 for this reason, the time spent on these issues are also relevant to the other claims. It is fair to deduct part of the costs awarded to W for the time and costs spent on these matters. 28.Taking all these matters into consideration as a whole, the proper costs order is to reduce the amount of W’s costs to be paid by Rs to 30%. The Cost Order Nisi be varied to this effect. The basis for taxation remain to be party and party, and so is the Certificate for two counsel. F. Costs of this application 29.Rs succeeded in the variation application. Having considered the parties’ Statement of Costs and Lists of Objections, I order that W do pay Rs forthwith the costs of this application, with certificate for one counsel, at an amount summarily assessed to be HK$95,000.
Ms. Yanky Lam instructed by Oliver C.M. Chan & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr. Aidan Tam instructed by Lee Chan Cheng for the 1st to 6th Respondents. [1] Judgment [2022] HKFC 230. [2] Points of Claim [75]. [3] Points of Claim [22], [30], [42]. [4] Points of Claim [52], [58], [66]. [5] Judgment [112] to [116]. [6] Judgment [117] to [136]. [7] [2012] 3 HKLRD 679. [8] HCMC 4/2010, 21 May 2014. [9] CACV 97 and 107/2015, 13 September 2016, per Lam VP at [7]. [10] CACV 240/2011, 1 March 2016, per Chu JA at [18]. [11] CACV 181/2011, 31 July 2012. [12] HCAP28/2019, 22 September 2020 [13]. [14] Rs’ written submission [4.2] [15] Judgment [125] and [135]. [16] [2022] HKFC 67 [196] – [197]. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under FCMC 4498/2016