K,Lys v. T,Cke
Read the full judgment text of FCMC 10356/2013 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment was delivered on 10 March 2026.
1. This is an application by the respondent husband (“Husband”) for leave to appeal against my decision made on 6 January 2026.
Cited by 5 cases · Cites 1 case
|
FCMC 10356/2013 [2026] HKFC 39 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION MATRIMONIAL CAUSES NUMBER 10356 OF 2013 ________________________
________________________
__________________________________ JUDGMENT __________________________________ Introduction 1.This is an application by the respondent husband (“Husband”) for leave to appeal against my decision made on 6 January 2026. 2.At the end of the hearing on 6 January 2026, I dismissed the Husband’s three summonses filed on 29 May 2025, 15 September 2025 and 5 January 2026 on the ground that the Husband’s applications were unmeritorious. 6 January 2026’s decision 3.I gave my brief reasons for the decision at the end of the hearing on 6 January 2026. I now give my full reasons. Background 4.By two summonses filed on 29 May 2025 and 15 September 2025, the Husband applied for orders to void maintenance order dated 29 December 2020 and to strike out the judgment summonses taken out by the petitioner wife (“Wife”) on various dates. 5.The Husband also took out a summons on 5 January 2026 on various case management matters. 6.The relevant background of this case is set out in HHJ K.K. Pang’s judgment [2020] HKFC 269 (“Maintenance Order Judgment”), and may be summarised as follows. 7.The parties were married in November 2011. On 22 July 2013, the Wife filed petition for divorce on the ground of unreasonable behaviour. 8.They have two children. A daughter who is now 16 and a son who is now 14. 9.On 15 October 2013, the court ordered the Husband to pay interim maintenance in the sum of HK$10,000. 10.The court granted joint custody of the children to the parties, with care and control to the Wife and defined access to the Husband on 8 January 2014. 11.Decree nisi was granted on 22 August 2014. 12.On 30 August 2017, the court ordered that the interim maintenance be increased to HK$15,000 from September 2017. 13.On 31 August 2018, it was ordered that the Husband shall pay the Wife a sum of HK$154,000 being arrears of interim maintenance for the period from 2013 to August 2017. The court further ordered that the Husband to pay monthly interim maintenance in the sum of HK$25,000. See: [2018] HKFC 148 14.On 29 December 2020, it was ordered that the Husband shall pay HK$25,000 per month to the Wife as periodical payments for the children (in other words, HK$12,500 for each child), the first payment to be made on 10 August 2018, and subsequent payments on the 10th day of each succeeding month until the said children attain the age of 18 or cease to receive full-time education, whichever is the later (“Maintenance Order”). 15.Decree absolute was granted on 29 June 2021. 16.The parties’ relationship remains severely strained over the years. For years, they have been fighting over children matters, ancillary relief and arrears of maintenance. 17.The Husband failed to comply with the order dated 31 August 2018 and the Maintenance Order. 18.The Wife only recovered the arrears of interim maintenance in October 2024. 19.As at today, the Wife had taken out six judgment summonses against the Husband. The Husband’s applications 20.On 29 May 2025, the Husband took out a summons to void the Maintenance Order. 21.On 15 September 2025, the Husband filed a summons to strike out five judgment summonses, which were filed on 5 July 2019, 7 June 2021, 26 July 2023, 22 January 2024 and 24 March 2025 respectively (“Judgment Summons”). 22.The Husband’s grounds of applications boil down to the following:
The Wife’s Case 23.The Wife submitted that there was no legal basis for the Husband to take out the present applications and the Husband was trying to delay and postpone the continuance of all the judgment summons proceedings against him. 24.The Husband had on 9 July 2021 and 11 December 2023 made two attempts to apply for variation of the Maintenance Order. On these two occasions, the Husband relied on an interview of the Wife and her sister regarding a funeral planning company to allege that the Wife had concealed her assets. 25.The Wife explained that she already filed an affirmation in opposition to the Husband’s first attempt to vary the Maintenance Order on 6 May 2022. The Wife confirmed that she had no legal or beneficial interest in the funeral planning company. 26.The Husband however did not show up at the trial of his first variation of maintenance application and he failed to attend adjourned call-over hearing of the second variation of maintenance application. The Husband’s applications were dismissed by the court. 27.The Wife submitted that the Husband’s applications were devoid of merits for the following reasons:
Analysis of the Husband’s contentions 28.The main arguments put forward by the Husband as to why the Maintenance Order should be void is that the Wife had provided inaccurate or untrue information about her financial position which led HHJ Pang to make the Maintenance Order. 29.The history of the proceedings of this case shows that the Husband is unwilling and unable to accept the findings of the court. The Husband also has the tendency of ignoring court orders. After the Wife filed a judgment summons against the Husband, he has reacted by filing applications for variation of maintenance order. When the variation of maintenance applications approached trial stage or adjourned for a second call-over hearing, the Husband failed to show up or came up with excuse for not complying with the court order. His applications ended up dismissed by the court. 30.The Husband now alleged the Wife had given false information to misrepresent the court by her Form Es and answers filed in reply to his questionnaire. The Husband said HHJ Pang decided the Maintenance Order based on the Wife’s false information, and the Maintenance Order should be void. 31.The Husband explained that he only found out the Wife had inflated her expenses when she disclosed further documents in respond to subsequent applications. 32.The Husband complained that he found out the domestic helper was actually hired by the maternal grandmother instead of the Wife, and the Wife did not pay HK$27,000 as maintenance for her son from her first marriage. The Husband claimed that because of these false information, he offered to pay HK$25,000 as the children maintenance. See: [2020] HKFC 269 at paragraph 18. 33.When HHJ Pang made the Maintenance Order 5 years ago, both parties were on legal aid and thus legally represented. The Husband should be well aware that once a decision was made and he did not lodge an appeal, the decision is to be complied with. He is capable of understanding the importance of finality in litigation. Yet, he has chosen to take out the present applications which effectively amounts to a backdoor appeal and an abuse of the process of the court. 34.The Husband heavily relied on an interview of the Wife and her sister in June 2021 as evidence against the Wife’s credibility and her failure to make full and frank disclosure at the ancillary relief trial. The Wife had adduced the annual return of the funeral planning company filed with the Companies Registry on 15 December 2021. The annual return showed that the company was wholly owned by her brother. 35.The Wife produced the said annual return together with her affirmation in opposition to the Husband’s variation of maintenance application on 6 May 2022. The Husband was aware of the evidence, yet he just kept on repeating what he had said in his previous applications and was not able to proof to the contrary, save and except his bare assertion. 36.As for ownership of properties which the Husband alleged the Wife has beneficial ownership, the issue was already resolved by the order dated 9 February 2017, when the court declared that the Wife’s mother has 100% beneficial interest in properties in Hong Kong and in Canada. 37.The Husband contended that the Wife had inflated her expenses. I however agreed with the Wife’s submissions that HHJ Pang had already considered all circumstances of the case, including the living standard of the family during marriage, when he decided the case. HHJ Pang had set out his analysis in paragraphs 45 to 51 of the Maintenance Order Judgment. 38.The Husband’s applications were unmeritorious. I reiterate that there must be finality in litigation. Whether or not the Husband is satisfied with the outcome or the reasons in support of the Maintenance Order, the litigation must end. There is no valid reason or legal basis for this court to declare the Maintenance Order void. 39.In so far as the Husband said the Wife must provide documents in English to him. 40.Section 3(1) of the Official Languages Ordinance, Cap 5, states that English and Chinese languages are declared to be the official languages of Hong Kong for court proceedings. 41.Rule 4(5) of the Matrimonial Causes Rules (“MCR”), Cap. 179A provides that documents prepared for use by the court in any family proceedings may be in either official language and Rule 4(6) of MCR provides that a party may file a document to be served on another party or person in either official language. 42.Rule 4(7) of MCR provides that a party may request the other side to provide translation of document served on him. 43.In my view, the Husband had no difficulty in reading Chinese or at least he has his means to arrange for his own translation, otherwise he would not be able to read the Wife’s interview which was written in Chinese. 44.The Husband also complained that he only received sealed order for previous hearings weeks after the hearing, the Wife’s solicitors had been late in serving him the speaking notes for the hearing and the PTR bundle. The Husband said it was a delaying tactic on the Wife’s part to affect his right to seek legal advice. 45.The Wife had set out her grounds of opposition in her affirmation filed on 30 October 2025. I do not consider the Husband’s alleged late service of speaking notes and PTR bundle had caused any prejudice to him. The speaking notes were merely summarizing what the Wife had said in her affirmation in opposition and it was a note submitted by the Wife’s solicitors to assist the court in the hearing. 46.I am of the view that there is no force in the Husband’s complaints. The proceedings continued for over 12 years, the Husband had many opportunities to obtain legal advice if he wanted to. 47.The parties to an action is obliged to assist the court to achieve the underlying objectives under Order 1A, rule 1 of the Rules of District Court, which includes to ensure that the resources of the Court are distributed fairly. 48.I consider that to allow the Husband’s application that is hopeless to proceed further for trial would be to compel the Wife to expend time and public fund (as the Wife is on legal aid) to expend money in defending a case which obviously had no merit whatsoever. Conclusion 49.For the reasons given above, I dismiss the Husband’s applications which were waste of time and resources. Costs 50.The Wife asked that her costs be paid by the Husband on indemnity basis given that the applications were plainly unmeritorious, and should not be left out of pocket for the difference between costs on a party-and-party basis. 51.I am of the view that costs should follow the event. I also agree with the Wife, that her costs in respect of the Husband’s summonses filed on 29 May 2025 and 15 September 2025 should be awarded on indemnity basis for the reason that the Husband’s applications were devoid of merits. As for the Husband’s summons filed on 5 January 2026, the costs should be awarded on party-and-party basis. 52.I order that the Husband do pay the Wife costs of his summonses filed on 29 May 2025 and 15 September 2025 (including all costs reserved) on indemnity basis and his summons filed on 5 January 2026 on party-and-party basis, to be taxed if not agreed. The Wife’s own costs be taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulations. The Husband’s leave to appeal application The law 53.The test for leave to appeal is set out in Section 63A of the District Court Ordinance which states: “Leave to appeal shall not be granted unless the judge hearing the application for leave is satisfied that the appeal has a reasonable prospect of success or there is some other reason in the interests of justice why the appeal should be heard.” 54.The draft grounds of appeal annexed to the Husband’s application consists 6 pages. They may be grouped into intended four grounds of appeal. As will be seen below, none of the intended grounds of appeal has merit. Ground 1 – Court should not dismissed the applications without full trial 55.The Husband contended that the court erred in dismissing his summons without going through a trial or a substantive hearing. 56.Order 1A, rule 4 of the Rules of District Court empowers the court to actively manage cases including deciding promptly which issues need full investigation and trial and accordingly disposing summarily of the others. 57.As explained in my decision, I found the Husband encumbered the court with three unmeritorious applications that were nothing but a waste of the court’s time, public resources and against the underlying principles of Order 1A, rule 1 of the Rules of District Court. Ground 2 – The Wife failed to disclose her ownership in properties and the court ought to set aside or void the Maintenance Order 58.The Husband simply repeated his allegations against the Wife for her failure to disclose her ownership in a property which had been disposed by a court order dated 9 February 2017. 59.There was no substance in the Husband’s allegation in any case. Ground 3 – The Wife’s solicitors had been late in serving documents, PTR hearing bundle and speaking notes on the Husband 60.The Husband was merely repeating his allegations in respect of the conduct of the Wife’s solicitors for serving documents on him lately. 61.There was no force in the Husband’s arguments. The Husband’s applications were wholly unmeritorious, devoid of any legal and factual basis. The fact that the Wife’s solicitors was being late in serving documents on the Husband, would not in any event assist the Husband’s hopeless applications. Ground 4 – The Wife had inflated her expenses in her Form Es 62.HHJ Pang had set out his analysis regarding the expenses of the Wife in paragraphs 45 to 51 of the Maintenance Order Judgment. HHJ Pang had took into account of all circumstances of the case, including the fact that during marriage, the parties had domestic helper to serve them. 63.Further, the Husband complained that the Wife had inflated her expenses as she said she needed to pay HK$27,000 as maintenance for her son from her first marriage. Again, there was no force in this argument. HHJ Pang had never allowed the Wife’s alleged expenses of HK$27,000 as part of her expenses. 64.According to paragraph 50 of the Maintenance Order Judgment, HHJ Pang only allowed HK$4,140 as the Wife’s personal expenses. The Husband complained that the Wife had inflated her expenses by including the maintenance paid for her son from her first marriage is devoid of factual basis. Conclusion 65.The intended appeal against the decision made on 6 January 2026 has no prospect of success. In the circumstances, the Husband’s application is dismissed. 66.Since the Wife did not file any submission in respect of the Husband’s intended appeal, I make no order as to costs in respect of the Husband’s application.
Messrs. Alvin Cheng & Rosaline Choy for the Petitioner Respondent (Applicant), acting in person | ||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under FCMC 10356/2013