Read the full judgment text of FCMC 1332/2022 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment was delivered on 28 November 2024 before HH Judge C.K. Chan.
District Court – Matrimonial Causes – Costs Order Nisi – Variation of Costs – Beneficial Ownership of House – Common Intention Constructive Trust – Petitioner W, YC – Respondent T, WK – Intervener TWF – W's summons dismissed – F's summons dismissed – Costs order nisi made absolute – No order as to costs for summonses. This judgment concerns an application to vary a costs order nisi made following a contested trial of a preliminary issue on the beneficial ownership of a house registered under the sole name of the Petitioner. During the matrimonial proceedings, the Intervener, the younger half-brother of the Respondent, joined as an intervener and claimed 84.6% beneficial ownership under a common intention constructive trust or resulting trust. The Respondent supported this contention while the Petitioner denied any common intention or monetary contribution. The preliminary issue trial lasted six days with evidence from all parties. The court rejected the Petitioner's defence entirely, accepting a common intention existed and the Intervener paid the majority share of the down payment, but ruled the Intervener was a 65% beneficial owner responsible for 52% of the mortgage. As the Respondent and Intervener were regarded as winners, they were awarded costs on a party and party basis with a certificate for counsel on a nisi basis. The Petitioner filed a summons to vary the order to pay only 50% of the costs, arguing the Respondent and Intervener were not total winners, their settlement offers came too late, and her financial position was precarious with limited funds and medical conditions. The court held the Respondent and Intervener won on most important factual disputes and the Petitioner's evidence was totally rejected. The court noted the Petitioner made no reasonable counter offer to settle. Regarding financial position, the court noted the Intervener has severe visual problems and cannot take up regular employment, so reducing costs liability would increase his burden. The Intervener filed a summons seeking a certificate for two counsel, citing Xin Juan Trading Co Ltd v. NPH Petrochemical Ltd. The court considered the factors from the case regarding the nature of the case and importance but found the house equity was only a few millions, making a certificate for two counsel disproportionate. Both summonses were dismissed. The costs order nisi was made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs for the two summonses.
Legal issues: Variation of costs order nisi · Certificate for two counsel
Outcome: W's summons for variation dismissed; F's summons for variation dismissed; Costs order nisi made absolute.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 1 case