Ccmj v. Ssm Formerly Known As Skl

FCMP 67/2010

[2026] HKFC 53

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

FAMILY COURT

MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS NO. 67 OF 2010

__________________________________

__________________________________

BETWEEN

_________________________________

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

Decision on R. 121 Application

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

Introduction

1.This is a written decision of Respondent Mother’s (M) application under her amended Summons filed on 31 July 2025 for leave to use, disclose and refer 22 documents in these proceedings, for the purposes of advancing and/or defending the proceedings in HCMP 2099/2023 (“M’s 2^nd r.121 application”).

2.In my court order dated 30 July 2025, I ordered this application be dealt with by paper disposal. Parties complied with my directions in filing affidavits and lodging submissions.

3.On 16 January 2026, I ordered M to lodge and serve for Court’s consideration a paginated and supplemental bundle, together with a summary table, identifying which part of the 22 documents in these proceedings she would like to use, disclose and refer in HCMP 2099/2023 (“Interpleader proceedings”). M lodged this supplemental bundle on 21 January 2026. Applicant Father (F) then lodged 2 documents on 2 February 2026 and 6 February 2026 stating his objections on M’s application. I ordered that I would consider F’s both letters in M’s 2^nd r.121 application.

4.In summary, parties filed and lodged the following documents for me to consider:

Date	M	F
2 May 2025	Supporting affirmation
18 September 2025		Opposition affirmation
30 September 2025	Reply affirmation
2 October 2025	Hearing bundle Written Submission
23 October 2025		Written Submission
6 November 2025	Reply written submission
21 January 2026	Supplemental hearing bundles
2 February 2026		Letter
6 February 2026		Letter

5.This is the 2^nd r.121 application by M since 2 July 2024. M’s 1^st r. 121 application was dismissed by HHJ G Own on 10 January 2025.

6.I won’t repeat the facts of these proceedings in detail. The docket judge HH J G. Own who oversaw these proceedings commented the following in his recent ruling on F’s variation of order application on 21 May 2025:

“This is a piece of protracted litigation for the past 15 years where 20 full written Judgments/Decisions had been handed down by the Family Court and 5 Decisions by the Court of Appeal, let alone the wardship proceedings in the Court of First Instance under HCMP No.929 of 2017 taken out by the Applicant father where 12 full Judgment(s)/Decision(s) were handed down by Madam Justice B Chu and 2 Decisions by the Court of Appeal. Counting this Judgment, there would be 40 full written Judgment(s)/Decision(s) handed down by different levels of court.” ([2025] HKFC 89 at paragraph 1)

Background relevant to this application

7.In summary, the relevant background to this application are as follows:

(1) In 2015, after trial, F’s Silversea Property was ordered to be settled on trust for the use of the child of the parties and M free of mortgage payments until the child reaches 18 or ceases full time education, whichever is later ([2025] HKFC 89 at paragraph 5);

(2) In January 2021, F stopped paying the mortgage instalments of the Silversea property leading to Bank of China issuing proceedings against F in District Court under DCMP 2538 of 2021 ([2025] HKFC 89 at paragraph 7);

(3) On 12 January 2022, an order for possession of the Silversea Property was granted and mortgagee sale was being arranged ([2025] HKFC 89 at paragraph 8);

(4) On 25 February 2022, M obtained an interim injunction (“Interim Injunction”) retraining F from dealing with the net proceeds of sale of the Silversea Property and ordering payment of the same upon receipt into this Court ([2025] HKFC 89 at paragraph 9);

(5) In November 2022, F executed 4 Legal Charges (collectively “4 Legal Charges”) separately in respect of purported loans allegedly given to him by his mother and 3 other friends between 2018 and 2022. 4 Legal Charges were registered at the Land Registry on the title of the Silversea Property which came to the notice of Bank of China at the time of sale. ([2025] HKFC 89 at paragraph 10);

(6) On 10 March 2023, Bank of China sold Silversea Property. Net proceeds of sale were HK$12,122,071.55 (“Proceeds of sale”) ([2025] HKFC 89 at paragraph 11);

(7) On 10 November 2023, Bank of China through their lawyers took out the Interpleader Proceedings since they could not determine how the net proceeds of sale to be dealt with. ([2025] HKFC 89 at paragraph 12);

(8) Parties of Interpleader Proceedings are as follows ([2025] HKFC 89 at paragraph 15):

Bank of China	Applicant
Director of Legal Aid	1st Claimant
M	2nd Claimant
The Official Solicitor	3rd Claimant
Friend of F (“Friend 1 of F”)	4th Claimant
Mother of F (“Mother of F”)	5th Claimant
Friend of F (“Friend 2 of F”)	6th Claimant
Friend of F (“Friend 3 of F”)	7th Claimant
F	8th Claimant

4^th Claimant to 7^th Claimants in the Interpleader Proceedings collectively referred as “Mother and Friends of F”.

(9) On 8 May 2024, the proceeds of sale of selling Silversea Property at a sum of HK$12,122,071.55 was paid into the Court under the Interpleader Proceedings (paragraph 10 of 39th affidavit of M).

(10) On 21 August 2024, Deputy Judge Jeffrey Li, after hearing the parties on 21 November 2023, ordered an injunction whereby a sum of HK$8,058,253 out of the net proceeds of sale was to be injuncted until further order of the Court. It was further ordered that F do pay or procure to pay the said sum of HK$8,058,253 into this Court forthwith. F applied for leave to appeal and Deputy Judge Jeffrey Li dismissed the leave to appeal on 27 February 2025 (Supplemental bundle items 15 and 17);

(11) On 21 May 2025, Her Honour Judge G. Own, after hearing the parties at the trial on 4 and 18 March and 17 June 2024, and considered their closing and reply submissions on 15 July 2024 and 21 August 2024 respectively, ruled on parties’ application on variation of maintenance / discharge of undertakings / remission of outstanding arrears. Court ruled that while M’s carer’s allowance be varied to HK$2,000, undertakings of F given on 12 June 2014 do stand and continue, a total capitalized lump sum of HK$2,489,108 on past dues and sums currently due and unpaid and HK$4,287,900 on anticipated living costs and expenses of the child until she finishes full time tertiary education in August 2031. (Supplemental bundle item 21);

(12) In relation to Interpleader Proceedings, M filed M’s 3^rd Affidavit on 14 February 2025 to raise and particularize M’s challenges on the validity of the 4 Legal Charges (paragraph 6 of 43^rd affidavit of M). M further filed her Points of Claim on 7 April 2025 (paragraph 12 of 43^rd affidavit of M). F, mother of F and friends of F filed their Points of Defence on 6 May 2025. M further filed her Points of Reply on 20 May 2025 (paragraph 12 of 46^th affidavit of M).

(13) Under paragraph 4 of the Order dated 27 June 2025 under Interpleader Proceedings, it was ordered that the following issues be tried in the Interpleader Proceedings:

(i) Whether each of the 4 Legal Charges created by F for the 4^th to 7^th Claimants registered against the Silversea Property is valid;

(ii) If so, whether each of the 4 Legal Charges has priority over the [Interim] Injunction Order granted, and any amount which has been and may be adjudged as payable by F to M, in these proceedings; and

(iii) Ultimately, how the Surplus Remainder is to be dealt with. (“Interpleader Issues”)

(14) 2^nd pre-trial review hearing of the Interpleader Proceedings is now fixed for 29 April 2026 (paragraph 8 of M’s submissions). Trial on the Interpleader Proceedings is fixed for 18 August 2026, with 7 days reserved. (paragraph 15 of 46^th affidavit of M filed on 30 September 2025).

Legal Principles

8.I adopt the legal principle as stated in paragraphs 29-30 of M’s 1^st r.121 application judgment dated 10 January 2025. I consider the legal principles summarized by HHJ G. Own in his decision in WSSA v SYH [2023] HKFC 94 useful:

“17. Rule 121 of the MCR provides :-

“121. Inspection etc. of documents retained in court

1. A party to any matrimonial proceedings or his solicitor or the Secretary for Justice may have a search made for, and may inspect and bespeak a copy of, any document filed or lodged in the registry in those proceedings.

2. Except as provided by rules 47A(3) and 95(3) and paragraph (1) of this rule, no document filed or lodged in the registry, other than a decree or order made in open court, shall be open to inspection by any party without leave of the court, and no copy of any such document, or of an extract from any such document, shall be taken by, or issued to, any person without such leave.”

18. Matrimonial proceedings are largely private in nature. The rationale of Rule 121 was for the protection of the parties involved in the matrimonial proceedings. The documents filed in such proceedings shall not be disclosed in public unless leave of the court seized with the matrimonial proceedings has been obtained: see Horst Joachim Franz Geicke v I-Onasia Ltd, HCA 2379/2009, 17 October 2011 §32, per DHCJ Lok (as he then was).

19. In the case of Li Lihong v Choi Tung Chi & Anor², where it was said by DHCJ William Wong, SC., at paragraph 6 :-

“The proper forum to seek leave for the use of the documents covered by MCR Rule 121(2) and the implied undertaking …..……. is the Family Court (see Nayler v Beard [2001] 2 FLR 1346 per Wilson J (as he then was) at para 25 and per Hale LJ (as she then was) at para 49). The rationale of such practice is that the other party to the family proceedings (here, Mr Chan) should be allowed a voice in the debate, and this voice is likely going to be given proper attention in proceedings to which he is a party.

20. In the unreported case of Wong Kwok Hin v Wong Lai Fan & Anor, date of decision: 13/6/2001, where Hon P. Cheung J (as he then was) had said :-

“2. Rule 121 of the Matrimonial Causes Rules provides that a party to any matrimonial proceeding may, among other things, bespeak a copy of any document filed in the registry of those proceedings. As to non-parties, Rule 121(2) provides that : “Except as provided by Rules 47A(3) and 95(3) and paragraph 1 of this rule, no document filed or lodged in the registry other than a decree or order made in open court, shall be opened to inspection by any person without leave of the court, and no copy of any such document, or of an extract from any such document, shall be taken by or issued to, any person without such leave,”

3. The provisions of Rules 47(A)(3) and 95(3) are not relevant to this case. By virtue of Rule 121(2), the affirmation is clearly confidential in nature and intended to be so.

4. ……

5. ……

6. Phipson on Evidence 15^th Edn, at para.22-07 stated that “..….once affidavit has been served and filed, it would have been hard to imagine that it was possible to assert a claim for privilege even against the third party in subsequent proceedings.” And also, “No implied undertaking arose in the case of an affidavit once served not to use it for collateral purpose, save in those situations where the affidavit will require for a compulsion, where it was established that undertaking not to use the affidavit for collateral purpose would be implied.”

7. In my view, affirmations filed in matrimonial proceedings must be subject to special treatment because of the terms of Rule 121(2). It would be absurd if a non-party which had not obtained leave in the first place to inspect or copy the documents would nonetheless be able to use the documents in subsequent proceedings as if Rule 121 does not exist. (emphasis added).

8. There were cases in which documents relevant to family proceedings were supplied to a third party by either the immediate parties or their privies in the matrimonial proceedings, examples are, Medway v Doublelock Ltd [1978] 1 All ER 1261, where the wife in a matrimonial proceeding supplied her husband’s affidavit of means to parties who were engaged in litigation with the husband; S v S [1997] 3 FCR 1 and R v R [1998] 1 FLR 922 are cases where the Inland Revenue received documents of family proceedings in which there was evidence that the husbands had under declared their income. The court in these cases had to consider the nature of the case before deciding whether the third party could make use of the documents. (emphasis added)”

9.In considering an application under r.121, the Court is tasked with a proportionality exercise to balance the need of privacy and confidentiality of matrimonial proceedings, the principle of open justice, value of the documents sought to be disclosed in advancing that purpose, and any risk of harm which disclosure may cause to the legitimate interests of the parties (H, RS v X, Y [2025] HKFC 112 at paragraph 8 per HHJ S. Lo)

Documents sought to be relied on by M

10.M applied for 22 documents to be disclosed in this application. On 21 January 2026, M confirmed she would not pursue on the disclosure of “45^th F’s affidavit filed on 2 July 2020”. Therefore, the total number of documents sought to be disclosed for Interpleader Proceedings is 21 documents only. The composition of the 21 documents are as follows:

(1) 8 F’s affidavits filed in between 2019 and 2025;

(2) 1 F’s mother affirmation filed on 18 July 2024;

(3) 1 M’s affirmation filed on 21 February 2022;

(4) 3 F’s Form E filed in between 2022 and 2023;

(5) 1 F’s hearing note on 20 December 2023;

(6) 1 Transcript of VOM trial on 4 March 2024;

(7) 2 F’s summons for payment out of court in Family Court filed on 15 October 2024 and 17 April 2025;

(8) 1 Judgment on Injunction and on 21 August 2024;

(9) 1 Judgement on leave to appeal judgment on Injunction on 27 February 2025;

(10) 1 Judgment on Variation of Maintenance / Discharge of Undertaking / Remission of Outstanding Arrears on 21 May 2025;

(11) 1 Charging Order Nisi in relation to Judgment on Variation of Maintenance / Discharge of Undertaking / Remission of Outstanding Arrears filed on 2 June 2025.

11.M consider the documents are crucial to:

(1) Support facts that have been stated in M’s affidavit and pleadings filed in the Interpleader Proceedings; and/or

(2) Challenge the case of F and his friends/mother in the Interpleader Proceedings, particularly as to the consistency (or lack thereof) of their case in relation to the creation and particulars of the purported loans and the 4 Legal Charges, and F’s previous disclosure (or lack thereof) of the existence and supporting documents of the purported loans.

F’s opposition

12.F’s affidavit in opposition dated 18 September 2025 contained 38 pages. Within the 112 paragraphs of his affidavit, there contained matters not directly relevant to M’s application but relevant to issues related to Interpleader proceedings, e.g. F’s views that injunction is no longer in force after the maintenance variation order dated 21 May 2025; M holds no preference right over other claimants in the Interpleader Proceedings; Family Court has no jurisdiction to order lump sum to be secured over the net proceeds of sale giving M any priority over other claimants; M utilized a charging order to intervene and manipulate the Interpleader Proceedings subsequent to her failure to implement the injunction order; no ruling from the family hearings on numerous occasions indicating the F’s loans and the legal encumbrances recorded in the land registry are fictitious; nature of secured vs unsecured liability; improper attempt to create security via charging orders.

13.F’s submission said there are 4 main grounds of opposition / objection on M’s application under section B, paragraph 3 of H’s submissions. By quoting directly what he submitted in paragraph 3 of H’s submissions, they are:

(a) “It eviscerates the sacrosanct confidentiality of family proceedings concerning financial matters and the children’s affairs, weaponising private affairs for a public debt dispute to suit the Respondent’s private agenda”;

(b) “It constitutes a blatant abuse of process, being a vexatious second attempt to re-litigate these document issues previously dismissed with costs, violating this Court’s jurisdictional boundaries, re-adjudicating matters over which this Court has already declared it lacs jurisdiction on 21^st May 2025”;

(c) “Tampering with Evidence: This is the criminal act of altering, concealing, falsifying, or destroying evidence. The Respondent deliberately excluded 90% of the Applicant’s evidence to mislead the High Court”;

(d) “Presenting Incomplete evidence violates evidential integrity under the Evidence Ordinance (Cap.8), abusing judicial process and leading to prejudicial evidence or “fishing expeditions”.

14.However, I consider “tampering with evidence” and “presenting incomplete evidence” are overlapping. Further, H submitted under section G of H’s submissions “Fabrications and Judgement Shopping”, I consider this section is also not relevant and/or overlapping with other sections.

15.I do not intend to go through F’s opposition affidavit and his submission in any great detail save to refer only to those contentious, if any, which are of relevance and importance when considering M’s application herein.

16.Summarizing F’s opposition affirmation, F’s submission and 2 letters, F’s main opposition grounds are as follows:

(1) “Sanctity of Confidentiality” – F submitted that there is a strong presumption of confidentiality for children’s proceedings. These establish a strict prohibition on disclosing any documents from family proceedings sitting in private regarding maintenance, wardship, upbringing, custody and access rights of a child to non-parties or other courts. F further submitted that DL v SL [2015] EWHC 2621 (Fam) establishes financial remedy proceedings as “quintessentially private business” and Mr. Justice Mostyn in this judgment said media presence ensures fairness and public education, but not at the expense of privacy. F further submitted M has the burden to show a compelling public interest of using private information for a private debt (maintenance) claim.

(2) “Abuse of Process and Jurisdictional Violation” – F submitted this is M’s second attempt to re-litigate settled issues. F further submitted that Family Court has pronounced “no jurisdiction” over the interpleader fund or extending its authority or jurisdictions to the High Court. Granting leave would be “an impermissible end-run around this Court’s declaration”.

(3) “Evidential Manipulation, Tampering and Breach of the Evidence Ordinance” and “M’s tactic of decontextualization” (paragraphs 13-16 and 17-22 of F’s submissions) – F submitted M cherry-picked and omitted approximately 90% of F’s evidence in these proceedings in this r.121 application. F submitted that the evidence M omitted showed F’s sources of loans and their applications with solid documentary evidence. F considers M engages in “spoliation of the evidentiary record, undermining court’s truth-finding function”, and is fundamentally prejudicial and constitutes an abuse of process, contravening Evidence Ordinance, and against legal integrity. F stressed that the documents M sought in this application represents “a calculated endeavour to mislead the High Court in the Interpleader Proceedings by employing a compilation of Family Court documents in a profoundly fragmented and manipulated manner, selectively extracting conclusions from two distinct levels of courts that lack any inter-jurisdictional connection”.

Analysis

General analysis

17.I will first conduct a general analysis on whether documents sought to be used / disclosed by M in the Interpleader Proceedings is relevant to M’s case in Interpleader Proceedings, then I will deal with F’s three main oppositions.

18.After dealing with the general analysis, I will go through the proposed redaction of each document sought to be used / disclosed by M in detail and see whether the version proposed by M is appropriate.

19.Before I turn to general analysis, I summarize a chronology as annexed in Annexure 1 of this Brief Written Decision, including the main events, documents sought to be used and events in Interpleader Proceedings for a more comprehensive understanding of M’s 2^nd r. 121 application.

Relevancy

20.It is M’s case that documents sought to be used are relevant to M’s case in the Interpleader Proceedings.

21.Those documents are either supporting the facts that have been stated in M’s 3^rd Affidavit and pleadings in the Interpleader Proceedings and to challenge F’s case in the Interpleader Proceedings, particularly as to the consistency (or lack thereof) of the case of F and his friends / mother in relation to the creation and particulars of the purported loans and the Legal Charges, and F’s previous disclosure (or lack thereof) of the existence and supporting documents of the purported loans.

22.I consider the documents sought by M are generally related to Interpleader Issues.

23.I am of the view that the relevant documents touched on the Interpleader Issues and M has the right to conduct her case in respect of the Legal Charges by presenting to High Court the evidence that supports her case, be it to support her version of events in Points of Claim or an evidence showing inconsistency of evidence on F or Mother and Friends of F.

24.I would like to stress that by accepting the documents sought by M to be relevant in the Interpleader Proceedings does not mean I agree to M’s version of events or position in interpreting these evidence and documents in the Interpleader Proceedings. M’s evidence or argument on the use of these documents might be accepted or rejected by the trial judge of Interpleader Proceedings.

25.My role in this application is to consider whether these documents could be disclosed and allow such documents to be disclosed for the purpose mentioned by M. As long as those documents are not oppressive and showed some relevancy by M, I would accept it. I would not conduct a minute investigation on whether each word and sentence on the document sought to be disclosed is relevant to Interpleader Proceedings.

26.If F seeks leave from this Court for disclosing documents in these proceedings that he may use in supporting his version of events or position in the Interpleader Proceedings, I will also consider the same by going through the same legal principles under r.121 application.

Confidentiality

27.While I agreed that family proceedings are largely private in nature, I am aware that I retain the power to grant leave for disclosure of documents filed in such proceedings after carrying out a proportionality exercise when dealing with r.121 application.

28.In this application, the use of the documents sought by M this time is not used for any publicity in this case. It will be used in arguing and supporting M’s case in the Interpleader Proceedings.

29.In Secretary for Justice v FTCW & Ors [2014] 1 HKLRD at paragraph 27¸ Lam VP (as he then was), mentioned the following:

“27. Mr Pointer submitted that special consideration should be given to confidentiality of family proceedings. We can make several points on this submission. First, we see no reason why the special nature of family proceedings should altogether wipe out the court’s inherent jurisdiction to control access to documents in its custody though we accept this might be a matter to be taken into account in the balancing exercise as postulated by Toulson LJ at [85] of Guardian News…… Third, having said that, we also accept that the duty to give full and frank disclosure in ancillary relief applications may give rise to special consideration (which in essence the R v K point) in the balancing exercise and we need to consider that below. Fourth, it should also be emphasized that the need for preserving the integrity of the judicial process in terms of effective legal sanction against perjury and using forged documents in the court process is equally potent for family proceedings as in other civil proceedings.” (emphasis added)

30.In this case, M pointed out the documents sought to be disclosed are to challenge F’s case. The purpose of the Interpleader Issues is for M to argue on validity or priority of the Legal Charges which will affect F’s payment or enforcement of child maintenance in the future and in arrears from the Proceeds of sale of Silversea Property. In fact, the evidence may provide to High Court a more comprehensive picture in the Interpleader Proceedings in deciding the validity and priority of the 4 Legal Charges.

31.By balancing the relevancy of the documents sought to be used in Interpleader Proceedings and privacy of the parties and child, I consider M ought to have an opportunity to present her case and evidence to be tried in the Interpleader Proceedings. I consider it to be fair for M in using the documents sought to be disclosed for the purpose of the Interpleader Proceedings.

32.Privacy of the parties and the child can be protected by suitable redaction, which I will go through in detail whether the proposed redaction by M protect the privacy of the parties and the child.

Abuse of Process and Jurisdictional Violation

33.Although this is M’s 2^nd r.121 Application, this application is different from M’s 1^st r.121 Application as no issues has been identified by the Interpleader Proceedings at the time of the 1^st r.121 Application, as HHJ G. Own mentioned in paragraph 37 in his decision on M’s 1^st r.121 Application:

“37. In my view, unless and until pleadings are filed and exchanged, I am unable to carry out any ‘balancing test’ (see Secretary for Justice v FTCW &Ors, supra) in terms of weighing the relevant conflicting interests and rights of the parties. It is legally and procedurally wrong for me to carry out the requisite “balancing test” in abstract in anticipation of a piece of “would-be” litigation (my emphasis).”

34.High Court now has identified Interpleader Issues. I do not agree that there is an abuse of process or res judicata in this application.

35.I do not agree with F’s argument that I do not have jurisdiction to rule whether documents sought to be used / disclosed by M because the Proceeds of Sale are the subject matter of the Interpleader Proceedings and under the direction of the Court of First Instance. In fact, the proper forum to seek leave for the use of the documents by r. 121 of Matrimonial Causes Rules and the implied undertaking is the Family Court.

36.In relation to the point of jurisdictional violation, I stressed again I am not ruling on the Interpleader Issues in this application. I am only dealing with M’s application to use the documents in these proceedings, and whether or not the Court would accept M’s position and version on Interpleader Issues rests on the trial judge of the Interpleader Proceedings.

Evidential Manipulation, Tampering and Breach of the Evidence Ordinance

37.Another main complaint of F is M cherry-picked the documents in these proceedings to be used in the Interpleader Proceedings. However, I am not in the position to become parties’ counsel or legal representatives and make a full enquiry on what kind of documents in these proceedings are relevant to the Interpleader Proceedings. Parties should be aware there are more than [500] documents filed in these proceedings and it would impose an unnecessary heavy burden to this Court to go through all the documents and consider what kind of documents ought to be disclosed for Interpleader Proceedings.

38.The duty lies on parties to seek leave from this Court to disclose relevant documents for their argument in Interpleader Proceedings. I am not in a position to comment how parties should present their evidence in Interpleader Proceedings in this r.121 application.

39.Interpleader Proceedings is a civil action and the legal structure of common law in civil action is an adversarial system. Each party presents their own case, evidence and argument before an impartial judge. Full and frank disclosure of all evidence relevant to the civil action and the Judge will adjudicate the matter according to the evidence presented by the parties and the parties are bound by issues raised in the pleadings. If F would like to provide counter evidence which arose from these proceedings to prove M show an incomplete picture of evidence in the Interpleader Proceedings, F should apply leave in this Court for evidence he considers to be important and relevant to support his case in the Interpleader Proceedings.

40.M produced clear evidence showing she has invited F to state whether there are other documents / exhibits he wishes to deploy but F has never replied.

Specific analysis

41.F raised reasons of objection on some specific documents sought to be used by M but not all of the documents. While I have gone through general analysis above, I will go through below each document redacted by M in the Supplemental Bundle and decide whether that document as redacted by M should be disclosed for the purpose of Interpleader Proceedings after balancing the relevancy on the Interpleader Issues and also the privacy and confidentiality concern:

No.	Date	Document sought	Parties’ positions and Court’s Views
1.	18 July 2014	F’s mother affirmation (body only)	F considered this affirmation was presented a decade ago and this action resulted in the exposure and violation of the child, F’s mother and to seven unrelated parties. However, I accept the redacted version is relevant to Interpleader Proceedings. Since F’s mother is also a party of the Interpleader Proceeding. After the balancing exercise, I consider the redacted version should be allowed.
2.	27 Feb 2019	44th F affidavit (body only), filed in opposition to M’s application for reimbursement of renovation costs	M considered it is relevant to F’s disclosure about his financial situation and liabilities at the time when some of the underlying loans of the Legal Charges had already been advanced to him. M considers this is to show what she mentioned in paragraph 46 of M’s 3rd affirmation in Interpleader Proceedings. After the balancing exercise, I consider the redaction version by redacted child’s name is appropriate. I consider the redacted version should be allowed.
3.	2 July 2020	45th F affidavit (no longer pursue by M)	Not applicable
4.	29 Jun 2021	46th F affidavit (body only) and exhibit “CCMJ-46-3”, in opposition to M’s 2nd Garnishee application	M considered it is relevant to F’s disclosure about his financial situation and liabilities at the time, including alleged loan notes produced under exhibit “CCMJ-46-3”. After the balancing exercise, I consider the redacted version should be allowed.
5.	5 Oct 2021	47th F affidavit (body only) and exhibit “CCMJ-47-4”, in support of F’s application for downward variation of child maintenance	M considered it is relevant to F’s disclosure about this financial situation and liabilities at the time, including alleged loan notes produced under exhibits “CCMJ-47-4”. I note M redated the lenders of F’s affidavit which are not the parties in the Interpleader Proceedings. After the balancing exercise, I consider the redacted version already protect parties beyond the parties in the Interpleader Proceedings and the redacted version should be allowed.
6.	21 Feb 2022	30th M affidavit (body only), filed in support of M’s injunction application	M considered it is relevant to the circumstances giving rise to the Interim Injunction Order, in particular, F’s knowledge of M’s intention to have child’s future maintenance secured against the Sale Proceeds of the Silversea Property. After the balancing exercise, I consider the redacted version should be allowed.
7.	26 Oct 2022	F’s Form E (body only)	F considered M sought a “discarded” From E. M considered it is relevant to F’s disclosure about his financial situation and liabilities at the time. I do not fully understand what F means that M sought a “discarded” Form E. In any event, I consider what M is sought is relevant to the Interpleader Proceedings. After the balancing exercise, I consider the redacted version should be allowed.
8.	30 Dec 2022	50th F affidavit (body only) and exhibit “CCMJ-50-10”, filed in opposition to M’s application for Injunction Order	M considered it is relevant to F’s disclosure about his financial situation and liabilities at the time, including further alleged borrowing records produced under exhibit “CCMJ-50-10”. After the balancing exercise, I consider M already redacted the loans unrelated to the parties in the Interpleader Proceedings, I consider the redacted version should be allowed.
9.	21 Feb 2023	51st F affidavit (body only) and exhibit “CCMJ-51-5”, filed in support of F’s application for downward variation of child’s maintenance	M considered it is relevant to F’s disclosure about his financial situation and liabilities and the F’s direct evidence on the Legal Charges at the time, including alleged consolidated loan notes produced under exhibit “CCMJ-51-5”. After the balancing exercise, I consider the redacted version should be allowed.
10.	21 Feb 2023	F’s Form E (body only)	F considered M sought a “discarded” From E. M considered it is relevant to F’s disclosure about his financial situation and liabilities at the time. I do not fully understand what F means that M sought a “discarded” Form E. In any event, I consider what M is sought is relevant to the Interpleader Proceedings. After the balancing exercise, I consider the redacted version should be allowed.
11.	5 May 2023	52nd F affidavit (body only) and exhibits “CCMJ-52-08”, “CCMJ-52-11”, “CCMF-52-12”, “CCMJ-52-14” and “CCMJ-52-16”, filed in support of F’s application downward variation of child maintenance	M considered it is relevant to the F’s disclosure about his financial situation and liabilities and F’s direct evidence on the Legal Charges at the time, including further alleged loan note produced under exhibit “CCMJ-52-08”, deposit of alleged loan cheques produced under exhibit “CCMJ-52-11”, bank statements showing deposit of alleged loan cheques produced under exhibit “CCMJ-52-12”, cheques and documents showing alleged transfers from F to his then solicitors produced under exhibit “CCMJ-52-14”, and cheques and documents showing alleged major expenses produced under exhibit “CCMJ-52-16”. After the balancing exercise, I consider the redacted version should be allowed.
12.	5 May 2023	F’s Form E (body only) and Attachment A	F considered M sought a “discarded” From E. M considered it is relevant to F’s disclosure about his financial situation and liabilities at the time, including alleged loan notes produced under Attachment A. I do not fully understand what F means that M sought a “discarded” Form E. In any event, I consider what M is sought is relevant to the Interpleader Proceedings. After the balancing exercise, I consider the redacted version should be allowed.
13.	20 Dec 2023	F’s hearing note	M considered it is relevant to F’s allegations about the Legal Charges at the time. I considered M only sought 3 paragraphs in this hearing note to be disclosed. After the balancing exercise, I consider the redacted version should be allowed.
14.	4 Mar 2024	Transcript of VOM trial	M considered it is relevant to F’s oral evidence as to the Legal Charges. I note M sought to disclose the part on 4 Legal Charges only. After the balancing exercise, I consider the redacted version should be allowed.
15.	21 Aug 2024	Injunction Judgment	I consider this is relevant to Interpleader Issues as it involves the basis of M’s claim in the Interpleader Proceedings. After the balancing exercise, I consider it should be allowed in full.
16.	15 Oct 2024	F summons, for the release of Proceeds of sale to him	M considered it is relevant to F’s perception of his entitlement to the Sale Proceeds of Silversea Property. This piece of evidence also supported paragraph 37(15)(c) of M’s Points of Claim. After the balancing exercise, I consider it should be allowed in full.
17.	27 Feb 2025	Leave to appeal Injunction Judgment	M considered it is relevant to F’s misleading presentation of the underlying loans of the Legal Charges to the Court, including but not limited to Paragraph 45. I consider it is the trial judge of Interpleader Proceedings to consider the analysis of the Judgement. I consider the judgment is relevant to Interpleader Issues. After the balancing exercise, I consider it should be allowed in full.
18.	17 Apr 2025	F summons, for the release of Proceeds of sale to him	M considered it is relevant to F’s perception of his entitlement to Sale Proceeds of Silversea Property. After the balancing exercise, I consider it should be allowed in full.
19.	22 Apr 2025	F affidavit	M considered it is relevant to F’s discussion of the underlying loans from his mother and the circumstances leading to the creation of the Legal Charges. After the balancing exercise, I consider the redacted version should be allowed.
20.	17 Apr 2025	F affidavit	I note this is related to F’s version of events on the four legal charges, which is related to Interpleader Issues. After the balancing exercise, I consider the redacted version should be allowed.
21.	21 May 2025	VOM and Lump Sum Judgment	M considered it is the basis of M’s Charging Order Application. I consider this is relevant to Interpleader Issues. This is also a published document. After the balancing exercise, I consider it should be allowed in full.
22.	2 Jun 2025	CO Nisi on the VOM and Lump Sum Judgment at a sum of HK$6,777,008 (and the Charging Order Absolute made thereof, if any)	M considered it is to demonstrate M’s position towards the funds in the High Court in the Interpleader Proceedings. After the balancing exercise, I consider this is relevant to Interpleader Issues and the redacted version is allowed.

Summary

42.In summary, I accept the documents sought to be used, disclosed and referred by M for the purpose of Interpleader Proceedings based on the version in the Supplemental Bundle.

43.I have considered all the submissions and relevant documents in reaching this decision, I do not intend to repeat each and every submission advanced by the parties in this brief reasons of decision.

Decision

44.Based on the above, I rule in favour of M in this application. By adopting M’s wordings in the Amended Summons, I make the following order:

(1) Leave be granted to the parties to use, disclose and refer to the documents according to the redacted version of the Supplemental Bundle lodged to the Court on 21 January 2026 which were prepared, filed, lodged or disclosed in these proceedings of FCMP 67/2010, for the purposes of advancing and/or defending the proceedings in HCMP 2099/2023 in respect of the Legal Charges registered in the Land Registry by Memorial Nos.22112801220029, 22112801220030, 22112801220043 and 22112801220058 against the property located at Flat C on 12^th Floor including the Balcony and Utility Platform of Tower 2, One Silversea, No. 18 Hoi Fai Road, Kowloon.

(2) For the avoidance of doubt, the parties be released from any implied undertaking in relation to the documents in the Supplemental Bundle for the purposes stated in Paragraph (1) above.

Costs Order

45.I consider costs should follow the event. I ordered the following on costs:

(1) F should pay to M costs of and occasioned by M’s 2^nd r.121 Application, with Certificate for Counsel, including all costs reserved, to be taxed if not agreed.

(2) M’s own costs be taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulations.

(3) This is a costs order nisi which would become absolute if no application to vary the same was made within 14 days from the date of this Judgment.

For the Petitioner

Ms Fiona Chong, instructed by Messrs. Stevenson, Wong & Co. for the Respondent (SSM formerly known as SKL)