Cmy v. Ydsw
Read the full judgment text of FCMC 3768/2020 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment was delivered on 20 December 2024 before Deputy District Judge W.Y. Ho.
Family law – costs – disclosure of family court documents – leave to disclose – costs of application – no order as to costs – summary assessment – Matrimonial Causes Rules – Petitioner applied for leave to disclose financial documents from FCMC 3768/2020 for use in High Court Action HCA 1592/2023 – Respondent objected initially due to general wording of summons – Petitioner failed to specify documents until January 2024 – Court held neither party entirely successful – No order as to costs of Petitioner's Summons – Costs of application for costs awarded to Respondent – Petitioner ordered to lodge List of Objections to Respondent's Statement of Costs.
Legal issues: Costs of the Petitioner's Summons · Costs of the application for costs
Outcome: No order as to costs of the Petitioner's Summons. Costs of the application for costs to the Respondent.
Cites 2 cases
|
FCMC 3768/2020 [2024] HKFC221 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION MATRIMONIAL CAUSES NO. 3768 OF 2020 __________________________________
___________________________________
--------------------- DECISION (Costs) --------------------- 1.This is the Petitioner’s application for costs of her summons dated 3 November 2023 (“the Petitioner’s Summons”), in which she applied for leave to disclose the financial documents of the present family proceedings and to use the same in the High Court Action, HCA 1592/2023 (“the High Court Action”). 2.I set out the chronology of salient events below.
3.I shall not repeat the trite principles relating to the award of costs. The principles are succinctly summarized in paragraph 62/0/2 of the Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2025 (Vol 1) and by To J at paragraphs 11 – 20 of his judgment in the case of Melvin Waxman and anor v Li Fei Yu and anor, (unrep), 11 September 2013, HCA 1972/2012. 4.Having read the correspondences put before me, I find the Respondent could not be faulted for refusing to concede to the Petitioner’s Summons until after the call-over hearing of the Petitioner’s Summons. 5.Firstly, I note wording of the Petitioner’s Summons is too general, the effect of which is to encompasses all financial documents filed by the Respondent. 6.Paragraph 1 of the Petitioner’s Summons reads as follows:
7.It is trite to say that, disclosure of Family Court documents is not as of right (see Rule 121, Matrimonial Causes Rules, Cap 179A). The court is to balance the interests of the parties (including any prejudice to be suffered), the principle of open justice, and interests of justice when deciding whether leave should be granted for the disclosure of family court documents. I do not repeat the summary of the legal principles which are set out by Deputy District Judge KK Pang (as he then was) at paragraphs 13 – 17 of the judgment in the case of DJ v LRM (unrep) 7 July 2015, FCMC 8507/2013. 8.In order for the court to consider the Petitioner’s request for disclosure, the court must know the exact documents sought to be disclosed before the court can embark on a balancing exercise to determine if leave should be granted. The wording of paragraph 1 of the Petitioner’s Summons would not have been allowed as is. Hence, if the Petitioner’s Summons proceeded to full argument, she would still be required to specify which document she seeks to have disclosed. 9.Secondly, Hugill & Ip requested for the details of the Petitioner’s intended disclosure application as early as 24 October 2023, that is, 21 days after the High Court Action was issued. However, the Petitioner did not specify the documents sought to be disclosed until CRS’s letter dated 19 January 2024. This letter was the first time the Petitioner gave specific details on the paragraphs, answers, and exhibits sought to be disclosed. 10.The Respondent wrote the following in their letter dated 24 October 2023:
11.It is apparent the Respondent was willing to engage in negotiations over the Petitioner’s Summons provided the Petitioner gave details on what documents she sought to have disclosed. Regrettably, the Petitioner never specified the documents she sought to have disclosed until the issuance of the Petitioner’s Summons. Subsequently, it was not until the letter dated 19 January 2024, did CRS properly set out in detail all the documents and the specific parts of those documents the Petitioner sought to have disclosed. Hence, other than the Petitioner’s Summons, CRS never properly responded to the Respondent’s request for particulars of the Petitioner’s Summons until the letters dated 12 January 2024 and 19 January 2024. 12.Counsel for the Petitioner, Ms Booth, argued the Respondent had all along maintained a blanket refusal to the Petitioner’s Summons and therefore the application was necessitated by the Respondent’s blanket refusal. I disagree. 13.Although the Respondent maintained his objection to the Petitioner’s Summons up until 29 January 2024, I note the Respondent responded in agreement 10 days after CRS’ letter dated 19 January 2024. For reasons I have given above, I do not find his position to be unreasonable in all the circumstances. Moreover, I do not accept the Petitioner’s Summons was entirely caused or necessitated by the Respondent’s refusal to concede to the Petitioner’s application. 14.Having considered counsels’ submissions, the relevant correspondence, and the evidence before me, for reasons given above, I do not agree that costs should follow the event. 15.Having considered the submissions of counsel and the events leading up the Respondent’s consent to the Petitioner’s Summons, I do not find either party to be entirely successful in the Petitioner’s application. I am therefore of the view the parties should each bear their own costs of the Petitioner’s application. 16.As for the costs of the hearing on costs, I am of the view the Respondent is the successful party. Since the Petitioner has not filed her List of Objections to the Respondent’s Statement of Costs, I shall deal with the summary assessment by way of paper disposal. 17.I therefore make the following orders:
Ms Madeleine Booth instructed by Messrs Charles Russell Speechlys LLP for the Petitioner Mr Shaphan Marwah instructed by Messrs Hugill & Ip for the Respondent | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||