T, Ba v. Z, J

FCMC 3369 of 2021

[2025]HKFC 106

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES NO.3369 OF 2021

____________

____________

---------------------------------------------

Judgment
Variation of Child Maintenance

---------------------------------------------

A.  Introduction

1.The Parents were married on 30 April 2013.

2.There are two Children, C1 born in January 2015 and C2 born in October 2016 (“the Children”); they both attend G school in Hong Kong.

3.There are ongoing proceedings in relation to the Children’s arrangements with a Call Over scheduled for 8 August 2025.

4.On 25 May 2022, following the filing of a consent summons on 7 April 2022 (“the Consent Summons”), a consent order was made in relation to the Ancillary Relief (“the Order”) with a Decree Absolute of Divorce being pronounced on 23 June 2022.

B.  Applications before the Court

5.By her Notice of Application for Ancillary Relief dated 1 March 2024, the Mother sought the following relief :

i)     The Father shall contribute Children’s maintenance of HK$55,267 per month.

ii)    The Father to pay the Mother HK$331,602.

iii)   The Father to bear all costs for this application.

6.By her amended Notice of Application for Ancillary Relief dated 4 October 2024, the Mother seeks the following relief :

i)     The Father shall contribute Children’s maintenance of HK$38,000 per month.

ii)    The maintenance be secured by way of a lump sum in an amount to be determined by the court.

iii)   The variation of maintenance be backdated from 1 March 2024 and thereafter on the 1^st day of each month, until the Children reach the age of 18.

iv)   The Father to bear all costs for this application.

7.On 14 October 2024, the Father filed an application to vary maintenance :

i)     The Father’s maintenance be reduced to HK$10,000 per month from 1 October 2024.

ii)    The HK$10,000 per month be deducted from the remaining HK$160,000 set aside for maintenance in the consent summons financial arrangements from 2022 until January 2026, after which the Father will pay directly to the school the cost of one child’s fees.

iii)   Leave be granted to the Father to amend this application if the Mother ever supplies bank statements from July 2023 to July 2024.

iv)   The Mother be denied the right to make any application until bank statements are supplied.

8.I take the Mother’s Amended Notice of Application as an application to vary and review the Order.

C.  Parties’ Opening Positions

9.The Father’s proposal

i)     From September 2025, the Father to pay one child’s school tuition directly to the school.

ii)    From 8 September 2025, the Father to pay $10,000 per calendar month for child maintenance to the Mother.

iii)   Each party to bear the cost of their own holidays with the Children.

iv)   The Father not to contribute to the Mother’s personal expenses or her contribution to her parents.

v)    The Mother to pay the costs of this application and the costs to the Father of preparing the trial bundle.

10.The Mother’s proposal

i)     Variation of the Father’s maintenance obligation to HK$$44,634.50 per month or any upwards amount (from $28,000) the Court may deem fit, from the submission date of 1 March 2024 the application for ancillary relief.

ii)    Subject to court order, the latest variation of the Father’s maintenance obligation shall continue offset against HK$840,000 with HK$160,000 retained by the Mother in case of the Father’s financial default (Item F (C) and Item O (1) of the Consent Order dated 13 April 2022). Once the HK$840,000 got offset in full, the Father shall pay the lump sum of outstanding maintenance payment up to the latest court order following the trial.

iii)   Once the Father settles all his outstanding maintenance payment, he shall provide his undertaking to pay 50% of both Children’s school fee to school directly until the Children reach 18 and the remaining balance of HK$$34,634.50 to be paid to the Mother’s account on the monthly basis.

iv)   All cost shall be bear by the Father.

11.In her Closing Submission, the Mother sought HK$38,000 per month and/or a 50% share of the Children’s expenses and continuation of HK$160,000 as security for future payments.

12.In his Closing Submission, the Father confirmed his Open Proposal.

D.  Applicable Law

13.The seminal judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal on 10 January 2008 in AEM and VFM, (CACV 261 of 2006) states as follows :

“Principles on variation

14. 1. The power to vary a periodical payment order is expressly provided for by section 11(1) of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance (Cap. 192) (‘MPPO’) :

‘(1) Where the court has made an order to which this section applies, then, subject to the provisions of this section, the court shall have power to vary or discharge the order or to suspend any provision thereof temporarily and to revive the operation of any provision so suspended.’

2. How this power is to be exercised is stated in section 11(7) :

‘(7) In exercising the powers conferred by this section the court shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including any change in any of the matters to which the court was required to have regard when making the order to which the application relates and, where the party against whom that order was made has died, the changed circumstances resulting from his or her death.’

3. The traditional approach to variation was not to re-fix afresh the amount of maintenance but to consider the amount of change in the actual means of the parties so that the new order should merely be increased or decreased roughly in proportion to the change in the means : Foster v. Foster [1964] 3 All ER 541, Jackson’s Matrimonial Finance and Taxation 7^th Ed. Ch. 3. 131.

4. The modern approach, as required by section 11(7), is for the Court to consider all the circumstances of the cases. The Court is not required to proceed from the starting point of the original order but look at the matter afresh : Flavell v. Flavell [1997] 1 FLR 353 at 357B following Lewis v. Lewis [1977] 1 WLR 409 and Garner v. Garner [1992] 1 FLR 573.

5. Any change in any of the matters to which the Court was required to consider when making the original order was one of the circumstances to be considered.

6. Almost invariably, an application to vary an earlier periodical payment order will be brought on the basis that there has been some changes in the circumstances since the original order was made, for example, continuing inflation; the increased costs in supporting a growing child and that one party may be more adversely affected than another by the increase in the costs of living : Garner v. Garner.

7. An increase in the wealth of the husband was a relevant factor to be taken into account : Primavera v. Primavera [1991] 1 FLR 16 and Cornick v. Cornick (No. 2)[1995] 2 FLR 490.

     8. At the same time the basis and intended effect of the original order are relevant factors to which the Court on variation should pay regard and there should not be a radical departure from the approach taken by the parties themselves when they had entered into an agreement embodied in a consent order : Boylan v. Boylan [1988] FLR 282.”

E.  Financial Disclosure

14.It is an unfortunate feature of the applications that, as referred to below, I consider that neither party has complied with their respective obligations to the court and each other to make full, frank and clear disclosure of all their financial and other relevant circumstances.

15.As an example, it was apparent at the trial that both Parties had failed to disclose their current employment contract; these were only produced as P1 and R1 on 11 February 2025, the 2^nd day of the trial.

16.Although the Parties are currently litigants in person, they have had legal advice. In any event and in addition to which Form E gives clear and precise guidance to the deponent as to the duty of disclosure and the consequences of failing to make disclosure :

“Please fill in this form fully and accurately.  Where any box is not applicable write “N/A”.  You have a duty to the court to give a full, frank and clear disclosure of all your financial and other relevant circumstances.

A failure to give full and accurate disclosure may result in any order the court makes being set aside and an order for costs being made against you.

If you are found to have been deliberately untruthful, criminal proceedings for perjury may be taken against you.

If there is not enough room on the form for any particular piece of information, you may continue on an attached sheet or paper.

Attach documents to the form where they are specifically sought and you may attach other documents where it is necessary to explain or clarify any of the information that you give.

This statement must be sworn or affirmed before a solicitor or a Commissioner for Oaths before it is filed with the Court or sent to the other party.

Important: You are recommended to obtain independent legal advice before completing this form.”

17.In the circumstances, there is no excuse for a litigant, whether acting in person or represented, to fail in their duty to make the disclosure required. Where a litigant fails to comply with such duty, they have only themselves to blame in the event the court has difficulty assessing their case and the application(s) to be determined.

18.Subsequent to the Trial, by a letter received by the Court on 20 February 2025, the Father complained that he had been unable to cross-examine the Mother on her contract of employment dated 4 November 2020, which she produced as R1 on the 2^nd day of the Trial, 11 February 2025.

19.The preparation of this judgment was hindered by the Parties’ financial disclosure, and therefore on 3 April 2025, I gave the following directions :

“1. The Parties to each disclose on oath their income from 1 January 2022 in accordance with the Part 3 of Form E, a copy of which is attached.

2. For the avoidance of doubt that Parties are reminded of their respective duty to the court to give full frank and clear disclosure as set out at page one of Form E a copy of which is also attached.

3. The affirmations, which should only address the parties income as directed above, are to be filed and exchanged on before the 24th of April 2025”

20.The Mother’s affirmation of 24 April 2025 inter alia confirmed her monthly income to be HK$151,000 and that she received a bonus in 2024 of HK$648,927 (@HK$54,000 per month); that is to say @HK$205,000 per month.

21.In addition, the Mother deposed to the fact that subsequent to a ‘post trial event’ she received the sum of HK$335,472 on 28 February 2025 as part of her employer’s Long Term Performance Plan for the years 2022-2024 (“LTPP”) which the Mother referred to as a monthly benefit of HK$13,978.  It would appear that the Mother calculated the figure of HK$13,978 by dividing the LTPP by 24 months, however, it is of note that her exhibit JZ 8 describes HK$335,472 as the original value and gives the current value as HK$371,513, which divided by 24 months = HK$15,479.

22.The Mother’s explanation for not disclosing the LTPP was as follows:

“9. At the time when I filed Form E and at the trial hearing, I did not receive any of the LTPP payment and it was uncertain whether I would receive such payment as it’s entirely subject to my continuous employment until the payment date of 28 February 2025.”

“14. I have always be forthright and transparent with my actual/received cash earnings. However, being acting in person, I was unclear the disclosure of speculative and conditional future receivables such as LTPP which are subject to my continuous employment and the future payout amount will be driven by the market condition and company performance.”

23.It remains unclear whether the monthly benefit is HK$13,978 or HK$15,479; I propose, on a broad brush basis, to take the sum of HK$15,000.

24.I calculate the Mother’s monthly income to be HK$220,000 (Basic salary HK$151,000 + bonus of HK$54,000 + LTPP HK$15,000). For the purposes of the applications, I will work on the basis that the Mother’s gross income is HK$220,000 per month.

25.The Father’s affirmation of 24 April 2025 confirmed his current income as follows:

i)	Basic	HK$77,350
ii)	Bonus (average)	HK$19,500
iii)	Housing	HK$33,150
iv)	MPF	HK$1,500
		HK$131,500

26.I do not propose to take into account the MPF $1,500, so for the purposes of the applications, I will work on the basis that the Father’s gross income is HK$130,000 per month.

F.  Analysis

27.I consider the starting point to these applications is the Order and in particular :

“F (c) A sum of HK$1 million is be set aside from the Petitioner’s share of the matrimonial assets held by the Respondent and to be retained by the Respondent to meet the Children’s maintenance payments as provided for in Recital O(1) and Paragraph 1 of the Order below”

“O.AND UPON the Petitioner and the Respondent acknowledging confirming and agreeing and undertaking each other and to the Court that:-

(1) Pursuant to Recital F(c) above the Petitioner shall pay HK$28,000 per month for the Children’s maintenance for 30 months with the first payment to be paid upon the signing of the Consent Summons herein and thereafter on the same day of each month. The remaining balance of HK$160,000 is to be held by the Respondent in case of any default in payment.

(2) Thereafter the Parties shall review the Children’s monthly expenses including school fees and school related expenses of the Children and how such expenses shall be shares, and pending the review, the Petitioner shall continue paying HK$28,000 per month towards the Children’s maintenance until each child reaches 18 years of age or completes full time education up to the end of the first degree whichever is the later.

P. AND UPON the Petitioner and the Respondent acknowledging confirming and undertaking to each other and to the Court that for the first 30 months following the date of the Consent Summons, the Respondent shall be responsible for all expenses of the Children including school fees and school related expenses, save and except for the expense incurred when the Children are with the Petitioner and any expense incurred, by the Petitioner, for and/or on behalf of the Children without the Respondent’s written consent;

BY CONSENT IT IS ORDERED that:-

1. Pursuant to Recitals F(c), O(1) and O(2), the Petitioner shall pay maintenance for the children of the family, namely “C1 and C2” as to HK$14,000 per child until each child reaches the age of 18 years of age or completes full time education up to the end of the first degree whichever is the later.

28.The Recital O of the Order recorded that the first child maintenance payment would be made on the signing of the Consent Summons which was 7 April 2022 and that payments would continue for 30 months and that thereafter there would be a review of the Children’s expenses and how such expenses should be shared between the Parties.

29.In the context of the intended review, it is necessary to consider the Children’s expenses, the respective income and expenses of the Parents, and how the Children’s expenses should be shared between the Parents.

G.  The evidence

The Mother’s oral evidence

30.In her oral evidence, the Mother updated the Children’s expenses as stated in her written submissions; her monthly rent had increased to HK$35,000 from 1 February 2025, and the Children’s school fees had increased by HK$1,050 per month.

31.I calculate, as best as I can, that the Children’s expenses as claimed by the Mother are as follows :

Item	Amount
School fee HK$21,033 + HK$1,050	22,083
Books / stationery	1,000
Medical / dental	1,000
ECA	8,680
Entertainment	3,000
Holidays	5,000
Clothing / shoes	2,000
Insurance	1,045
Lunches and pocket money	500
Uniform	500
Piano rental	350
Rent HK$35,000, 2/3	23,334
Utilities	1,495
Domestic Helper	5,200
Food	6,667
Gymnastics per child	2,880
Math – Eye level	2,260
School camp – Annabel 2024	341
School camp – Annabel 2024	170
Increase in school camp 2025	739
YWCA membership	25
Total	HK$88,269

32.The Father challenged the Mother’s evidence, inter alia in relation to her financial disclosure, her income and a number of items of expenditure.

33.In her claim for the Children’s expenses, the Mother claims 2/3 of the monthly rent.  I understand the Father’s case to be that the Children’s maternal grandmother, aged approximately 71, occupies the property and that the Children therefore share a bedroom as their grandmother occupies the third bedroom. The Mother explained that her mother does not live full-time with her and the Children and that she lives with her husband, who is approximately 70 and lives and works in the Mainland. In the overall circumstances of the case, I do not propose to disturb the 2/3 apportionment, although I will bear in mind that there is a potential overlap of the expenses the Mother has claimed in her General Expenses and those for the Children; for example, rent, utilities, food and domestic helper.

34.In her most recent Form E (May 2024) in the list of monthly General Expenses of HK$88,800, the Mother claimed HK$30,000 for “Other (specify) Legal bill, Mediation, Counselling”. The Mother’s explanation was that this was historic; it was the same amount the Mother had claimed in her Form E filed in July 2021. Although the Mother has on occasions had legal advice, her Form H does not disclose legal costs of such magnitude; I also note the Parties have not recently been engaged in mediation. Even allowing for some cost for counselling, I consider the figure of HK$30,000 to be unrealistic and inflated; I will allow HK$5,000.

35.In her Personal Expenses, the Mother claimed HK$10,000 for “Contribution to parents”. This was the same amount the Mother had claimed in her Form E filed in July 2021. However, in her Answer filed in October/November 2024, the Mother, in reconciling her yearly bank statements, stated “Payments in arrears to parents -480,000, $10,000 per months for 48 months”. On the basis that the Mother has not in fact been contributing to her parents on a monthly basis but rather purportedly a one-off payment calculated over a 4-year basis (48 months), I do not consider this to be a monthly expense to be taken into account.

36.In the circumstances, doing the best I can, I calculate the Mother’s expenses to be as follows :

General

Item	Amount
Rent 35,000 of which 2/3 relates to the Children	11,666
Utilities (electricity, gas, rates, telephone & water) of which 2/3 relates to the Children	1,805
Food (6,667 Children)	3,333
Household expenses	4,000
Insurance premia	2,500
Domestic helper(s) (5,200 Children)	1,800
Other (specify) Legal bill, Mediation, Counselling	5,000
Total monthly household expenses	HK$30,104

Personal

Item	Amount
Meals out of home	3,000
Transport	1,000
Clothing / Shoes	5,000
Personal grooming (including haircut and cosmetics)	9,600
Entertainment / presents	2,000
Holiday (During COVID / Post COVID)	5,000
Medical / Dental	2,000
Tax	21,000
Insurance premia	2,500
Contribution to parents	0
Total monthly personal expenses	HK$51,100

37.The total of the Mother’s General and Personal monthly expenses is HK$81,204, which I will round up to HK$82,000.

38.The Father challenged the Mother that she had not in her Form E disclosed the landed property which is referred to in paragraph G of the Order: “the Respondent shall retain sole and absolute legal and beneficial ownership in the landed property in Chongqing registered in the sole name of the Respondent’s mother; the Petitioner shall waive all his claims in relation to such property.”

39.As the applications before the Court relate to a variation of child maintenance and there has been a Clean Break, I do not propose to further consider this aspect.

40.The Father challenged the Mother that in addition, her income should take into account the MPF contributions :

i)	Employee contribution	HK$1,500
ii)	Employer contribution	HK$15,250
iii)	Total monthly MPF	HK$16,750

41.As I understand the Father’s case, he was suggesting that the Mother had caused her employer to increase its MPF contribution with the objective of reducing the Mother’s available income.

42.On the evidence before me, I do not accept the Father’s contention; for the purposes of the applications, as referred to above, I consider the Mother’s monthly gross income to be HK$220,000 and her General and Personal expenses to be HK$82,000 per month.

The Father’s oral evidence

43.In his evidence in chief, the Father disclosed that he had received a bonus of US$30,000 on 6 February 2025. I calculate this to be approximately HK$234,000.

44.On the 2^nd day of the hearing, the Father produced a printout of his HSBC statement (P2) recording such receipt and payments on 6 February 2025 which he stated to be as follows :

i)     Repayment to his Mother US$14,503 = approximately A$23,000 = approximately HK$113,000

ii)    Tax HK$85,532 and HK$31,156, a total of HK$116,688

45.When asked by the Mother why he had not disclosed his contract of employment, he had replied that he complied with the obligation in his Form E of 27 May 2024 to provide “Copies of proof of income of earned income for the last 3 months or contract of employment if any”.

46.By the order of 29 April 2024, the Parents were directed to file their respective Answer to Questionnaire by 22 July 2024. The Mother’s Questionnaire dated 24 June 2024 specifically asked for a copy of the Father’s contract of employment.

47.In his Answer dated 27 June 2024 the Father stated :

“i) 19) The details of my income are covered in my tax returns. My employment contract would be confidential if it existed. The Respondent has not provided their employment contracts or tax returns.

ii) 23) I currently have no income. Whilst my mother is currently covering all expenses effective immediately I am trying to reduce expenses and defer payments when due such as my tax.

iii) 24) I have had over 20 interviews and expect to be able to earn a base salary of between $100k-$150k HKD per month if and when I can find employment. The market is subdued at the moment over fears of a recession and the high growth of the last few years has slowed in my field. I am unable to provide “evidence” of job applications as almost all my conversations are via agents.”

48.At the request of the court, the Father produced his contract of employment on the 2^nd day of the trial (P1). It is a 7-page document, the 1^st page of which is dated 7 June 2024;  it was signed by the Father on 11 June 2024 prior to the date of the Father’s Answer dated 27 June 2024 wherein he had stated that “I currently have no income”.

49.Inter alia, the contract includes the following terms :

i)     2(a) “Salary: you will receive an annual salary at a rate of US$170,000 (or HKD equivalent) per annum”. I calculate this to be approximately HK$1,326,000 which equates to a monthly sum of HK$110,500.

ii)    2(c) “Year End Incentive Bonus: At the end of every calendar year for the duration of this employment agreement, you will receive a bonus of US$30,000 (or HKD equivalent) if the yearly profit (defined as revenue - costs) is greater than US$30,000 prior to any cash disbursements i.e. dividends.”

50.The Mother challenged the Father as to his employment at the time the Consent Summons was signed on 7 April 2022, leading to the making of the Order, specifically referring the Father to the following documents and chronology:

i)     That he had informed the Mother by his then solicitor’s email of 11 March 2022 that “He remains unemployed and has borrowed money to return to Hong Kong.”

ii)    That according to the Social Investigation Report dated 30 November 2023 “5. ‘The Father’ returned to Hong Kong in April 2022 and had been working as a Quantitative Trader in Akuna Hong Kong Limited since 25.2.2022. He provided an employment contract and an employer’s return of remuneration and pensions for the year ended 31.3.2023. His annual salary with bonus was HK$2,061,891.”

51.My understanding of the Father’s evidence was that the Social Investigation was hearsay, however at the end of the trial, at its request, the Father informed the court that his employment history is as follows :

i)     2021 employed for 3 months in Australia

ii)    2022/24 employed in Hong Kong by A company from April 2022 to March 2024

iii)   2024 was to be employed by D company from April/May 2024, who rescinded the arrangement

iv)   July 2024 employed by his current employer, AF company

52.The Mother also challenged the Father’s disclosure as to his MPF in his Form E dated 6 June 2021, wherein he stated :

i)     “Nil” at paragraph 2.12 which relates to pension / Mandatory Provident Fund / gratuity interests.

ii)    “5.5. 12. I liquidated my MPF account in Hong Kong when I returned to Australia, with a value of about HK$[xxx] and these funds were used to cover my living expenses.”

53.My understanding of the Father’s evidence was that “liquidated” was an inappropriate choice of word and that he was in fact unable to liquidate his MPF.

54.The Mother also challenged the veracity of the Father’s loans listed in his Form E of 8 June 2021, in particular :

i)     Debt to his Mother HK$702,725

ii)    Debt to his Father HK$100,000

55.The Father stated he was estranged from his father. He no longer recorded such loan in his Form E of 27 May 2024; the loans he did record were as follows:

i)     HSBC credit card HK$9,567.21

ii)    Mother HK$525,000

iii)   Loan to friends HK$40,000

iv)   HK IRD tax HK$364,563

56.As referred to above, the Father has made recent payment to his Mother and for tax.

57.In the normal course of events, it should not be necessary to canvass historic evidence leading to a clean break settlement and Order when the only issue before the court is that of child maintenance. However, the particular facts and circumstances of this case are that the capital division between the Parties was structured so that in effect the Father’s contribution to the Children’s maintenance for 30 months was by a capital sum being set aside from the Father’s share of the matrimonial assets as set out at paragraph F(c) of the Order.

58.The Mother has stated in her Opening and Closing Submissions that she is clearly of the opinion that the Father did not make full and frank disclosure of all his circumstances at the time the Consent Summons was negotiated.  Although the Mother is not, as I understand her case, currently applying to have the Order set aside for material non-disclosure, she clearly feels aggrieved.

The Father’s income

59.In his Form E dated 27 May 2024, the Father stated that he had zero income and that in paragraph 5.5 “I am currently unemployed & it could take >12 months to find work. During this time I will borrow money from my mother to pay rent and support myself.” As referred to above, his contract of employment is dated 7 June 2024 (P1); a matter of days after the filing of his Form E.

60.On 19 August 2024, the Court inter alia ordered as follows :

i)     Both parties do file and serve all the specified documents required to be attached to their Form E, by way of affirmation, on or before 2 September 2024.

ii)    Petitioner do file and serve a supplemental affirmation in relation to his updated financial situation on or before 2 September 2024.

61.In his affirmation of 2 September 2024, the Father updated the following :

“i) Item 4.1 General Expenses

Other - $40,000 Loan repayments (from $0)

ii) I have recently begun new employment and have attached my first pay slip. My Form E should be updated as follows:

Item 3.1 Income

-Average monthly income $77,350

-Housing allowance $33,150”

62.The pay slip exhibited is for July 2024 and states

i)	Basic Pay	HK$77,350
ii)	Housing Allowance	HK$33,150    HK$110,500
iii)	MPF from employer	HK$1,500
iv)	MPF from employee	HK$ 0

63.The Father did not disclose his bonus as specified in his contract of US$30,000 (HK$234,000).

64.I propose to apportion this on an annual basis = HK$19,500 per month excluding MPF.

65.I therefore consider the Father’s gross monthly income to be HK$130,000.

The Father’s claimed expenses in his Form E dated 27 May 2024

66.General

Item	Amount
Rent	32,000
Mortgage instalments	0
Utilities (electricity, gas, rates, telephone & water)	2,500
Management fees	0
Food	15,000
Household expenses	3,000
Car expenses	0
Insurance premia	0
Domestic helper(s)	0
Other (specify)	0
Total	HK$52,500

Personal

Item	Amount
Meals out of home	2,000
Transport	2,000
Clothing / Shoes	0
Personal grooming (including haircut and cosmetics)	500
Entertainment / presents	2,000
Holiday	0
Medical / Dental	1,000
Tax	30,000
Insurance premia	0
Interim maintenance	0
Contribution to parents	0
Dependent family members	0
Others (specify)	0
Total	HK$37,500

Children

Item	Amount
School fees	0
Extra tuition fees	0
School books and stationery	0
Transport to school (including school bus)	500
Medical / Dental	0
Extra Curricular Activities	4,000
Entertainment / presents	4,000
Holidays	5,000
Clothing / Shoes	2,000
Insurance premia	0
Lunches and pocket money	4,000
Other Transport	500
Child-minding fees	0
Uniform	0
Others (specify) Payment to Mother for child care/help	15,000
Total	HK$35,000

Total Monthly Expenses:HK$125,000

67.I consider the Father’s figures for Food (HK$15,000) high; in the circumstances, I propose to allow HK$10,000; I therefore assess the Father’s General Expenses at HK$47,500.

68.So far as the Personal Expenses, I note the Father paid tax from his capital as he disclosed at the trial, on income of HK$130,000. I consider the figure of HK$20,000 more realistic than the claimed figure of HK$30,000; I propose to allow HK$20,000 for tax, therefore the Father’s Personal Expenses are HK$27,500.

69.I do not accept the figure of HK$15,000, which the Father claims as “payment to wife for child care / help, as per order 27 March 2024 wife is to be present during “o/n” access so quit job to relocate” as an expense.  I allow the Father’s Children’s Expenses at HK$20,000.

70.I therefore consider the Father’s expenses to be HK$95,000 per month, including the Children’s Expenses and HK$75,000 excluding the Children’s Expenses.

H.  The outcome

71.Both Parties are clearly numerate, highly literate and employed in positions of significant responsibility, yet they both failed to disclose their contracts of employment until the trial itself and have inflated and/or padded their alleged expenses.

72.This is a paradigm example of how Parties should not conduct an application before the court.  Their respective failures to adequately disclose their circumstances have no doubt made meaningful negotiation virtually impossible and have left the Court with insufficient substantiated details, making an assessment of their respective cases unreasonably challenging.

73.With the above caveat, I summarise the Parents’ income and expenses as follows:

The Father

i)	Income	HK$130,000
ii)	Expenses (exclusive of Children)	HK$75,000
iii)	Net position	HK$55,000

The Mother

i)	Income	HK$220,000
ii)	Expenses (exclusive of Children)	HK$82,000
iii)	Net position	HK$138,000

74.The Mother’s Children’s expenses are HK$88,269, which for convenience I will round up to HK$88,500, and the Father’s Children’s expenses are HK$20,000, making a total of HK$108,500.  On the basis that each party pays 50% of the Children’s expenses, this would equate to HK$54,250.  The Father pays HK$20,000, leaving a balance of HK$34,250.

75.By reason of the disparity of the Parents’ income, I consider that the Mother should pay a greater percentage of the Children’s expenses of HK$108,500. On a broad brush basis, I propose that the Mother do pay 60%, which equates to HK$65,100, which I will round down to HK$65,000, leaving the Father to pay HK$43,500, which I round up to HK$44,000. The Father already pays HK$20,000, leaving a balance of HK$24,000 to pay namely HK$12,000 per month per child. As the Father is in employment in Hong Kong, I do not propose to secure such maintenance.

76.The sum of HK$24,000 per month will be backdated to October 2024, the time of the Mother’s amended Notice of Application.

77.There shall be a reconciliation between the balance of the HK$160,000 or other such sum which remains from the HK$1 million referred to in paragraph F(c) of the Order and the backdated maintenance; any outstanding balance be paid by the Father to the Mother within 42 days of this judgment.

Costs

78.The Parents are litigants in person, although it would appear they had legal advice; as to the applications, neither party has been entirely successful. I therefore make no order as to costs save in relation to the trial bundles as set out below.

79.In accordance with the order of 30 September 2024, the Mother was to prepare the trial bundle. The bundles prepared were not paginated until the Father provided paginated bundles. If the Father had not done so, the trial may well not have finished within the two days.  The Father’s Form H states that he spent HK$10,000 “preparing and repasting a trial bundle”.

80.In the circumstances, I order the Mother to pay the Father the sum of HK$6,000 for the preparation of the bundles, being 60% of the sum claimed by the Father, such sum to be paid within 42 days of this judgment.

81.Such orders shall be nisi to become absolute within 14 days of this judgment unless either party informs the Court in writing that they wish to be heard on costs.

I.  Conclusion

82.The Order dated 25 May 2022 be varied to the following extent, namely that paragraph 1 of the Order be replaced with an order that :

i)     The Petitioner Father do pay HK$24,000 per month (HK$12,000 per month per child) to the Respondent Mother as Child Maintenance until each child shall respectively attain the age of 18 years or cease full-time education whichever is the later; such payments to be by standing order to an account designated by the Respondent Mother.

ii)    The sum of HK$24,000 per month be backdated to 1 October 2024. There shall be a reconciliation between the balance of the HK$160,000 or other such sum which remains from the HK$1 million referred to in paragraph F(c) of the Order and the backdate maintenance; any outstanding balance be paid by the Petitioner Father to the Respondent Mother within 42 days of this judgment.

iii)   No order as to costs, save in relation to the trial bundles where the Respondent Mother do pay the Petitioner Father the sum of HK$6,000 for the preparation of the bundles, being 60% of the sum claimed by the Petitioner Father, such sum to be paid within 42 days of the date of this judgment.

iv)   The cost orders shall be nisi to become absolute within 14 days of this judgment unless either party informs the Court in writing that they wish to be heard on costs.