Yth v. Zl and Others

FCMC 9123 / 2024

[2026] HKFC 185

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES

NUMBER 9123 OF 2024

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

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

______________________________________

DECISION
( Leave to Disclose Documents )

______________________________________

1.This is the Petitioner Husband’s application to seek leave to file and serve his 2^nd List of Documents and to disclose the documents listed at items 93 to 103 of Part I of Schedule I thereto, namely the extracts of iMessage and WhatsApp exchanges between the Husband and the Wife between 2011 and 2022 (“the Messages”).  The 1^st Respondent Wife and the 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents raise objection to the application.

Background of the case

2.The Husband and the Wife were respectively born in 1972 and 1979.  At the date of the trial on preliminary issues commencing on 26 October 2026, they are respectively aged 54 and 47.

3.Both the Husband and the Wife are accountants by profession.  They got married in Hong Kong on 23 May 2010.  During the marriage, there were two children of the family.  The elder daughter was born on 13 February 2011.  The younger son, born on 28 February 2018, sadly passed away on 8 August 2023.

4.On 5 February 2024, the Husband petitioned for divorce on the ground of the Respondent’s unreasonable behaviour under FCMC 1236/2024.  The Wife opposed the petition and filed an Answer and Cross Petition.  On 13 May 2024, the Court allowed the Husband to file a fresh Petition based on one-year separation with consent.  The Petition under the present proceeding was filed on 23 August 2024.

Procedural history of the Preliminary Issues

5.Pursuant to the Order of Master TK Lam dated 27 August 2024, the Court granted leave for the Wife’s Mother and the Father to be joined as the 2^nd and the 3^rd Respondents respectively (collectively called “the Parents”) for the purpose of determining the beneficial ownership of disputed properties (“the Preliminary Issues”).  Directions on the filing of pleadings and, exchange of lists of documents and witness statements were also given.  All interlocutory applications should be made within 14 days after exchange of witness statements.

6.The Parents’ Points of Claim was filed on 4 October 2024 (which was subsequently amended on 10 February 2025). The Wife’s Points of Defence were filed on 17 February 2025. The Husband filed his Points of Defence and Counterclaim on 17 February 2025 (which was subsequently amended on 24 October 2025).  The Parents’ Points of Reply and Defence to Counterclaim was filed on 17 March 2025 (which was subsequently amended on 31 October 2025).

7.In respect of the evidence, the parties’ Lists of Documents were filed on 28 April 2025, while witness statements were exchanged in June 2025.

8.On 27 March 2026, upon the parties’ confirmation that there be no outstanding interlocutory application to make, the Preliminary Issues were set down for trial with 13 days reserved.

The properties involved

9.There are a number of landed properties involved in the Preliminary Issues.  For the purpose of the Husband’s application, the following are relevant.

1.   5E and 5F Po On Mansion

10.5E Po On Mansion was purchased on 4 July 2011 at the price of HK$6,750,000 under the names of the Husband and Wife, while 5F Po On Mansion was purchased under the sole name of the Wife on 4 August 2011 at the price of HK$6,580,000.

11.The Parents’ case is that the purchase of 5E Po On Mansion was funded by the Parents at HK$1,200,000 whilst a sum of HK$1,800,000 wase obtained from the mortgage of Choi Tien Mansion.  The Husband contributed HK$375,000.  The Wife held the property on trust for the Parents.  The beneficial ownerships between the Parents and the Husband would be reflected by the proportion of the financial contribution to the purchase.

12.In respect of 5F Po On Mansion, down payment of HK$3,080,000 was funded by the Parents, while the mortgage of HK$3,500,000 was taken out by the Wife who paid for the monthly mortgage repayment as rental and contribution to the parents.  The Wife held the property on behalf of the Parents and the Parents should be the true beneficial owners.

13.The Husband’s case is that:

(a)  The two properties would be purchased at the same time and to be used as their matrimonial home.  The two properties, adjacent to each other, would be substantially renovated and converted into a conjoint unit.

(b)  The Husband and the Wife would acquire one of the two properties to be chosen by the Husband as joint tenants while the other property would be under the sole name of the Wife.

(c)  The Husband denies that the properties are subject to any trust arrangement, and the Parents should not have any beneficial interest therein.

(d)  The Husband and the Wife’s share of the beneficial ownership of 5E Po On Mansion should be 85% and 15% respectively.

(e)  The Wife should have 100% beneficial interest of 5F Po On Mansion.

(f)  The Husband denies that the Parents had made any decision regarding selection, purchase, renovation and funding arrangements of the properties.

14.In 2022, the Husband assigned his 50% ownership of 5E Po On Mansion to the Wife at a consideration of HK$10,000,000, and he then proceeded to purchase Yiu Sing Mansion in his own name.

2.   Yiu Sing Mansion

15.Yiu Sing Mansion was purchased on 16 May 2022 at the price of HK$11,880,000 under the Husband’s sole name.

16.The Parent’s case is that they wished to purchase Yiu Sing Mansion property in around March 2022, but as they were not permanent residents in Hong Kong, they would be subject to Buyer’s Stamp Duty for the purchase.  At the time, the Husband was only holding 5E Po On Mansion.  He would have a quota for use when his registered ownership was transferred to the Wife.  Yiu Sing Mansion was purchased at the price of HK$11,880,000 which was wholly funded by the parents.  Therefore, it is the Parents’ position that they should have the beneficial ownership of Yiu Sing Mansion and the Husband is merely holding the property on their behalf.

17.The Husband denies the allegation.  The Husband contends that he and the Wife wished to acquire an investment property, and in order to make use of the tax benefit available for first time home buyers, he assigned his share of 5E Po On Mansion to the Wife, and then he purchased Yiu Sing Mansion in his own name.

3.   Choi Tien Mansion

18.Choi Tien Mansion property was purchased on 28 September 2009 in the names of the Husband and the Wife at the price of HK$7,050,000.

19.It is the Parents’ position that the Parents funded a sum of HK$4,365,000 towards the down payment while the Husband funded HK$485,000, and the proportion of beneficial ownership between the Parents and the Husband would be based on the financial contribution made to the acquisition of Choi Tien Mansion, i.e. the Parents have contributed approximately 90% of the downpayment while the Husband 10%.

20.The Husband took out a mortgage of HK$2,200,000, and he was the one to deal with the mortgage repayment  and the stamp duty of HK$264,685. The Husband and Wife moved to Choi Tien Mansion for a brief period.  After the birth of the daughter, they moved to another property in Taikoo Shing.  Choi Tien Mansion was let out for rental income which would cover monthly mortgage repayments and expenses.

21.Choi Tien Mansion was sold on 4 September 2020 for HK$14,538,000.  The Parents’ case is that after deducting the expenses, around 10% of the net sale proceeds, amounting to HK$1,500,000 was transferred to the Husband.

22.The Husband denies that the property was subject to any trust arrangement.  He alleges that the common understanding was that he would contribute about HK$3.5 million (approximately 44% of the purchase price) and the Wife would contribute HK$4.5 million (about 56% of the purchase price) and the beneficial ownership mirrors their respective financial contribution.  The Husband argues that he should be entitled to around HK$3,632,000.  The fact that he only received HK$1.5 million at the time of the sale was because he thought the Wife was in need of extra cash to repay her mortgages associated with the Vancouver Property.

4.   Vancouver Property

23.The Parents have moved to Canada since 1992 and are now Canadian residents. In the year 2019, the Parents purchased the Vancouver Property at the price of approximately HK$18,000,000 under the Mother’s sole name.  The purchase was funded by the net proceed of sale of Chi Sing Mansion and the re-financing of Choi Tien mansion as well as 5E and 5F Po On Mansion.  The Parents said that the Husband has no interest at all in the Vancouver Property.

24.The Husband argues that the Vancouver Property was held by the Mother on trust for the Husband and the Wife.  The property was registered in the Mother’s name because, the Husband alleges, the Husband and the Wife were concerned about the risk of revoking the Wife’s non-resident status for income tax purposes in Canada.

The Preliminary Issues

25.By the Points of Claim of the Parents, the Parents ask for a declaration that they are the beneficial owners of 5F Po On Mansion, Yiu Sing Mansion, and Vancouver Property.

26.In his Amended Defence and Counterclaim, the Husband counterclaims for a declaration inter alia that the Mother holds the Vancouver Property on trust for the Husband and the Wife, and that the Wife holds the 5F Po On Mansion for the Husband and the Wife.

The present application

27.The Husband wishes to seek leave to disclose the Messages which are extracts of iMessage and WhatsApp exchanges between the Husband and the Wife.  In his Written Submissions, Counsel for the Husband, Mr Giles Surman together with Mr Abel Lam, summarize the relevant Messages as follows:

(a)  2011 iMessage, from 20 April 2011 at 22:27 to 13 July 2011 at 16:53 (pp.8-31). This is the period during which 5E and 5F Po On Mansion were identified, negotiated, funded and acquired.

(b)  2017 WhatsApp, from 20 July 2017 to 31 August 2017 (pp.35–38), and 2017 iMessage, from 20 July 2017 at 12:36 to 21 November 2017 at 09:22 (pp.32–34). These exchanges concern the letting and management, the Wife’s repayment of her Standard Chartered mortgage and her statement that she would thereafter be free of debt. They bear directly 5E and 5F Po On Mansion.

(c)  2018 iMessage, from 23 May 2018 at 14:10 to 4 September 2018 at 18:35 (pp.39–51), and 2018 WhatsApp of 21 May 2018 (pp.52–53). These record the Husband and the Wife deliberating together over the purchase of a further property and over the deployment of their funds, as well as the placing of USD into fixed deposit. They provide the immediate context for what follows in 2019 and 2020.

(d)  2019 iMessage, from 16 February 2019 at 09:13 to 24 December 2019 at 15:00 (pp.54-67). This is the period in which Chi Sing Mansion was sold on 7 November 2019, Choi Tien Mansion was placed on the market, and the sale proceeds later applied towards acquiring the Vancouver Property.

(e)  2020 iMessage, from 2 January 2020 at 12:49 to 29 June 2020 at 14:07 (pp.68–83), and 2020 WhatsApp, from 6 January 2020 at 19:16 to 12 November 2020 at 09:51 (pp.84-118). This is the period of the acquisition of the Vancouver Property in February 2020, of the mortgage borrowing raised to fund it, and of the Wife’s continuing attempts to sell Choi Tien Mansion.

(f)  2021 iMessage, from 4 January 2021 at 17:12 to around 6 February 2021 (pp.119-124). These exchanges concern the mortgage position and the purchase of a car park at Taikoo Shing, which is relevant to the repayment of the Yiu Sing Loan.

(g)  2022 WhatsApp, from 11 March 2022 at 19:09 to 17 December 2022 at 13:10 (pp.149-165), and 2022 iMessage, from 16 March 2022 at 18:55 to 15 May 2022 at 18:59 (pp.125-148). This is the period during which the Husband sold his interest in 5E Po On Mansion to the Wife and acquired Yiu Sing Mansion.

28.In the written submissions in support of the application, the Husband clarifies that:

(a)  It is an application for leave to make further disclosure of documents. Leave is required not because the Husband has no right to give further discovery, the obligation of which is a continuing one, but because paragraph 6 of the Order dated 27 March 2026 provides that no further affirmations or documents shall be relied upon by the parties without leave of the Court.

(b)  It is not an application to adduce further evidence in chief. The Husband does not seek to amend his Witness Statement dated 20 June 2025, nor to amend his pleadings.

(c)  It does not require any existing direction to be varied. On the contrary, the directions already given for the updating of the trial bundle by 12 October 2026 accommodate the inclusion of the Messages into the trial bundles.

29.The Husband submits that he was able to recover and locate these WhatsApp and iMessages conversations in the course of preparing his affirmation in opposition to the Father’s application to give evidence via video link, of which the Summons was taken out on 22 July 2026. The Husband understands that discovery is an ongoing obligation and he is required to disclose these documents. The Husband apologized for the lateness and fully accepted that his present application was late.

The Respondents’ objections

30.The Wife is represented by Mr Eugene Yim, SC, and Mr Isaac Ng of counsel.  Their objections can be summarized as follows:

(a)  After the close of pleadings by March 2025, it would be clear to the Husband that the parties’ disputes centre around the parties’ common intentions in respect of the ownership of the disputed assets and the determination of the Preliminary Issues turns largely upon the parties’ recollection and the credibility of the same.  The Husband failed to explain why the Messages cannot be retrieved for almost nearly 1.5 years from the close of pleadings (by which the parties set out their pleaded cases) and over 1 year and 2 months from the filing of witness statements (by which the parties organized and explained their evidence in support of their respective cases and to counteract any documentary evidence disclosed by the other parties by way of discovery).

(b)  The Husband fails to explain how he is going to use the Messages at trial and how they would advance the Husband’s case, bearing in mind that none of the parties’ witness statements were able to cover the Messages.

(c)  The Wife could not ensure that the Husband had not cherry-picked messages to his favour and adduce further messages to provide the full context and complete picture of the parties’ communication.

(d)  It is hugely unfair for the Husband to substantially increase the scope of evidence at this late stage, leaving the Wife with very little time before the trial to prepare a proper response thereto.

31.The Parents, represented by Mr Eric Leung of counsel, also oppose the application on the following grounds:

(a)  The Parents were not parties to the Messages so they would not know (a) what was discussed between the Husband and the Wife until having sight of the Messages; and (b) in what context these discussions took place between the Husband and the Wife, or how the discussions in the Messages related to the acquisition of which particular property.

(b)  If the Messages were disclosed earlier, the Parents may well have been able to investigate around the times of the Messages, such as finding out whether there have been some discussions between themselves, or with the Wife, or even perhaps with the Husband which may have explained the context of these Messages or advanced and assisted the Parents’ case. However, due to the lateness of this application, the Parents do not have sufficient time to investigate and attempt to retrieve their own messages and this loss of opportunity is a significant prejudice to them that cannot be remedied.

Legal principles

32.As to the legal principles on the late application for leave to file supplemental list of documents, Mimmie Chan J has this to say in Converge Design and Construction Company Limited v Mount Kelly International Limited [2020] HKCFI 2433 at §2:

“ 2. The courts have emphasized on repeated occasions that CJR is about early preparation for trial, in order to achieve the objectives of the Rules. It needs no further reminder that delay itself is a ground to refuse a late application, either for discovery or for the introduction of new pleadings and evidence, when trial is imminent. The onus is on the applicant to justify its delay and to show good reason for leave to be granted. Whilst delay is to be weighed against the probative value and relevance of the pleadings and the evidence sought to be introduced, it need not be emphasized further that the primary aim in the Court’s exercise of its powers is to secure the just resolution of disputes in accordance with the substantive rights of the parties. Such just resolution of disputes requires due consideration of the time occasioned by last minute applications to introduce amendments to the pleadings and/or evidence on the eve of trial. Prejudice is inevitably caused, in the disruptions in the preparation for trial, the need to consider the new evidence and the need to respond thereto, coupled with the need to locate witnesses at the last minute to consider and if necessary to respond to the new evidence, and the last minute distraction from the proper focus and priority of the due preparation for trial. This is actual prejudice.”

33.In respect of the weight and probative value of the documents to be disclosed in late application, Mimmie Chan J. held the following at §9:

“9. As for lists of documents and discovery made on the eve of trial, it is for the litigant giving discovery at the eleventh hour to establish why the Court should exercise its discretion to permit the late discovery (Hong Lok School Limited v Chow Sai Yiu, HCA 17139/1999, 7 July 2003 and Big Island Construction (HK) Limited v Wu Yi Development Company Limited, HCA 1957/2005, 22 February 2010). Absent a good and credible explanation, by affidavit, as to why the document was not disclosed earlier, the application may be refused on the ground of delay alone. Even if there are documents hitherto disclosed, but were not referred to in the witness statements filed for trial, there should be affidavit evidence as to the use proposed to be made of the documents in question, the provenance and the maker of the document, its relevance to the issues before the Court, and the availability or otherwise of the maker of the document to attend trial for cross-examination. Clearly, this is all to ensure that the opponent in the litigation can fairly prepare for trial, and to enable the Court to properly exercise its discretion in dealing with objections from the opponent.”

34.In the case of Chu Hsiao Chiu Alias Chu Tony Chu Hsiao Chiu Alias Chu Hsiao Chiu, Deceased v Ma Jinrui and Ma Ming [2020] HKCFI 942 at §§18-21, Coleman J. (as he then was) has this to say:

“18. It is well-established in the ‘post-CJR era’ that the underlying objectives emphasise not only substantive but also procedural fairness.  Therefore, late or last-minute applications trigger the Court’s expectation that the applicant will provide a full account of the lateness of the application, and full justification as to why the application should be entertained at all at such a late stage.

19. There is no longer room for the notion that delay, even though inordinate and unexplained, will be forgiven as long as there is no prejudice and costs are paid.  Courts should take into account that there may be an irreparable element of unfair prejudice in unnecessarily delaying proceedings.  Further, the vacation or adjournment of the hearing occasioned by last-minute applications may mean the loss of the hearing day which could have benefited other litigants, and inefficiencies in the use of Court time, which is a public resource.  Hence, late applications can be dismissed on the basis of lateness alone.

20. Further, whilst the ultimate concern of the court is to achieve a just resolution of the case, it does not mean that a party should be permitted to raise any arguable case at any point in the proceedings, simply on payment of costs.  If a party has been afforded a reasonable opportunity to advance its case, the just resolution of the case does not require that he should be allowed a further opportunity in spite of his own inordinate and inexcusable delay.  Essentially, the applicant making a late application is extremely unlikely to be able to rely upon self-induced prejudice.

21. Of course, each case turns on its own particular circumstances.  There may also be a real and practical difference between (a) an application to admit new evidence shortly before a trial and (b) an application to admit new evidence in the context of an interlocutory hearing.  But the underlying principles remain the same, and it is only the exercise of the court’s discretion by reference to the particular circumstances which might change”.

Discussions

1.   Delay

35.The Husband fully accepts in the written submissions that his present application is late and he expresses his apology for the lateness.

36.The Wife and the Parents complain that there is inexcusable delay on the part of the Husband in taking out the application.  I respectfully agree.  First, the Husband filed the Point of Defence and Counterclaim on 17 February 2025.  Whilst it was subsequently amended on 24 October 2025, it must be clear to the Husband when the Point of Defence and Counterclaim was first filed that the crux of the dispute rests upon the parties’ common intentions in respect of the ownership of the disputed assets and the determination of the Preliminary Issues turns largely upon the parties’ recollection and the credibility of the same. I fail to see why the Husband did not retrieve, nor did he attempt to retrieve the Messages to support his case back in February 2025.  At least, there is no evidence from the Husband to explain his failure to do so when the present application is made.

37.The Husband filed the List of Documents on 28 April 2025, and witness statements were exchanged in June 2025.  Likewise, I fail to understand why the Husband did not attempt to retrieve the Messages at the time of preparation of the list of documents if he considered the Messages should be disclosed and relied upon.  The witness statements made no reference to those Messages at all.

38.As to the explanation for the delay, the Husband simply said in his supporting affirmation that he was able to recover and locate the Messages in the course of preparing his affirmation in opposition to the Father’s application to give evidence via video link.  With respect, the explanation is grossly inadequate.  §34 of the judgment in Liu Chen v Chan Poon Wing and Another, HCPI 779/2006 (unrep., 7 October 2009) set out the requirement for information in support of discovery at the eleventh hour as follows:

“34. In Hong Lok School Limited, in dealing with a litigant giving discovery at the eleventh hour, the learned judge held that such litigant should provide the court and the other side with full and accurate information at least as to the following to enable the court to exercise its discretion properly in dealing with possible objections from the opposing party:

a) the reasons why the subject documents were not disclosed earlier;

b) the provenance and the makers of such documents;

c) the relevance of such documents to the issues before the court;

d) the availability or non-availability of the makers to attend trial for cross-examination in case the opponent objected to the hearsay evidence.”

39.In the present case, the Messages were made from 2011 to 2022.  They should have been available at the time when the list of documents was filed on 28 April 2025.  No explanation was offered by the Husband as to why the Messages could not have been retrieved at the time when the List of Documents was prepared.  As pointed out by the Wife, the Husband provides no explanation as to why he did not conduct a search over the last two years.  At the time when the Preliminary Issues were set down for trial, counsel for the Husband (Mr Abel Lam) confirmed with the Court that there was no outstanding interlocutory application.  Likewise, the Husband provided no explanation as to why he could make such a confirmation through counsel when, regrettably, an application for disclosure of the Messages is now made at the eleventh hour.

40.The Husband attempts to argue that the present application is required not because he has no right to give further discovery bearing in mind that his obligation to give discovery is a continuing one, but because of the Order dated 27 March 2026 providing that no further affirmations or documents shall be relied upon by the parties without leave of the Court.  It seems the Husband is arguing that he should be entitled to rely on the documents referred to in the Summons but for the Order.  With respect, this is not correct.  As decided by Master M Ng (as she then was) in Liu Chen v Chan Poon Wing and Another, supra, at §24:

“24. In my view, where discovery is given at the eleventh hour, it is quite impermissible for the litigant giving such discovery to do so under the guise of voluntary discovery or as annexure to a further or supplemental witness statement without seeking leave of the court to give further discovery out of time.  Given the lateness of the further discovery, it should be anticipated (especially after the Civil Justice Reform (“CJR”)) that the opposing party may complain of such lateness.”

41.Based on the above analysis, I am not satisfied that the Husband has provided sufficient explanation for the delay. The unacceptable lateness in the application was apparent from the procedural history and is inexcusable.

2.   Weight and probative value of the Messages

42.The Husband avers that there can be no dispute as to provenance and makers of the Messages which were exchanges between the Husband and the Wife themselves. The contents of the Messages are obviously relevant.

43.With respect, the mere fact that the Messages were made between the Husband and the Wife during the relevant period does not necessarily mean that they are relevant to the issues in dispute in the present proceeding.  In this regard, I agree with the Wife that the Husband failed to address at all the relevance and probative value of the Messages:

(a)  Which specific property does each conversation refer to?

(b)  What was the “understanding and belief” that each conversation allegedly shows?

(c)  Which common intention pleaded by the parties did each alleged “understanding and belief” relate to?

(d)  How does each alleged “understanding and belief” support or undermine that common intention, and assist in determining the beneficial ownership of the Disputed Assets?

44.The Husband replies that no supplemental witness statement is actually needed to explain their relevance, they are self-explanatory on any view.  With respect, I do not agree.  I note that the extracts of the Messages to be relied upon by the Husband are fragmented, and the sentences in the Messages are sometimes incomplete.  Without detailed explanations by the Husband, whether by affirmation or witness statement, to set out the background and to put the messages in context, one is unable to see how the Messages are relevant and probative to the present proceeding.  In his Reply Submissions, the Husband annexed a Schedule purporting to identify, for each set of items 93 to 103, the period, the pages, the asset or transaction concerned, and the paragraphs of Amended Defence and Counterclaim to which it relates.  In my view, that does not assist the Husband as the contents of the schedule are not specific enough for the particulars as set out in the preceding paragraph.  Balanced all the considerations, I fail to see how the Messages will assist the court in securing “the just resolution of disputes in accordance with the substantive rights of the parties” even if application is granted.

3.   Prejudice to the other parties

45.Both the Wife and the Parents objected by saying that prejudice would be caused to them if the application is allowed.

46.The Wife submits that she has difficulties to retrieve all the messages made between the Husband and the Wife in order to check whether the Husband had not cherry-picked messages to his favour and adduce further messages to provide the full context and complete picture of the parties’ communication.

47.Further, the Wife complains that as the Messages do not speak for themselves and the Husband has provided very limited explanation as to how he intended to use the Messages, the Wife is left second-guessing as to how the Husband will deploy the newly discovered documents in establishing his case.  The Wife will only be able to understand the use of the Messages during trial when the Husband is giving evidence, or worse still, when she is being cross-examined.

48.The Husband reminds the Court that the primary aim is to secure the just resolution of disputes in accordance with the substantive rights of the parties.  As I see it, in carrying out the balancing exercise, I need to strike a balance between timely progress of cases and adherence to procedural timetables on the one hand and proper adjudication of cases on the merits on the other hand in order to achieve fairness and justice for the parties before the court.  Given that the trial will commence on 26 October 2026, and the intended disclosure of the Messages consisted of more than 150 pages of messages spanning from April 2011 to December 2022, it would be unfair for the Wife to spend considerable time in dealing with the Messages, instead of preparing for the imminent trial.  If the application were allowed, the Wife and the Parents would be required to file supplemental witness statements in response for fairness sake, but it is unlikely for them to prepare for the same before the commencement of the trial which will take place on 26 October 2026, and milestone date is likely to be compromised.

Conclusion

49.In view of the above analysis, the application must be dismissed.

50.There is no reason why costs should not follow the event.  I will grant an order nisi that costs of the application be paid by the Husband to the Wife and the Parents with certificate for one counsel.

51.Costs are to be assessed by summary assessment on paper.  If no variation application is made within the 14 day period, the Wife and the Parents shall lodge and serve statement of costs (no more than 2 pages) within 7 days thereafter, and the Husband shall lodge and serve list of objection (no more than 2 pages) within 7 days thereafter.

Mr. Giles Surman and Mr. Abel Lam instructed by Lau & Co, Solicitors for the Petitioner

Mr. Eugene Yim S.C. and Mr. Isaac Ng instructed by Withers for the 1^st Respondent

Mr. Eric Leung instructed by Tonys Lawyers for the 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents