Yuen Toombs Stephanie Downs v. Yuen Elmer

HCMC000002/2000

HCMC 2/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES NO. 2 OF 2000

(formerly FCMC (DJ)9231/96)

____________

____________

Coram: Deputy High Court Judge Woolley in Chambers

Dates of Hearing: 7, 12 and 13 February 2001

Date of Handing Down Judgment: 21 February 2001

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

1. These are applications for ancillary relief by both the petitioner and the respondent in these matrimonial proceedings, together with other related applications for injunctions, and setting aside transactions under section 17 of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance, Cap. 192. The respondent did not appear at this hearing and was not represented, but sent to the court letters enclosing what purported to be medical reports. I acceded to the request of Mr Coleman, on behalf of the petitioner, to proceed in the absence of the respondent, and will first of all give my reasons for so doing.

2. The proceedings were commenced on 27 September 1996, a decree nisi was granted on 12 May 1997, and the outstanding matters were transferred to this court by order of HH Judge Carlson on 7 January 2000. Directions were given by Deputy High Court Judge Gill on 29 June 2000, which included an order that the parties file and simultaneously exchange updated affidavits of means by 31 August 2000 and attend the court for cross-examination. Shortly thereafter, I understand, the parties attended the Listing Officer and the matter was fixed to be heard before me on 7 February this year with eight days reserved. The petitioner filed her affidavit in December 2000, and served it on the respondent, after waiting in vain for him to exchange his. He has never done so.

3. When the matter came before me on 7 February 2001, the court, and the petitioner's solicitors, had received, one or two days before, a letter from the respondent in New York, USA, with two medical reports. He requested an adjournment of the proceedings because of an attack of acute gouty arthritis, and of the medical reports, one, dated 30 January 2001, advised him to take a rest from that date to 5 February, and a second, dated 3 February, citing severe pain, advised him to remain at home for one week from 3 February to 9 February. On the basis of these reports, which were on the respective doctors' headed notepaper and signed and chopped by them, I adjourned the hearing to 12 February.

4. On 12 February the court received a further letter by fax from the respondent saying that he had been strongly advised by his doctor not to travel in the coming few weeks, and enclosing what purported to be a further medical report, which I did not consider provided a sufficient reason to again adjourn the hearing. The medical report itself raises doubts as to its genuineness. It is not on the doctor's headed notepaper as before, but apparently produced on a word processor, with different, and incorrect, spacing between some of the words and numbers. It is typed rather than written in the doctor's own handwriting, and does not bear his chop. As to its contents, I am not satisfied that, even if genuine, they give adequate reasons for the respondent not to attend. The doctor does not say he has even seen the respondent, or been told of the impending hearing, describes the foot pain as only "moderate", and only "suggests" that he should take it easy and not travel. This, in my view, is far from a convincing medical opinion that the respondent is unable to travel to Hong Kong to complete proceedings which have been in progress for a long time and the hearing date of which was fixed many months ago.

5. Taking all the circumstances into account, including the respondent's total failure to comply with Deputy High Court Judge Gill's order of June 2000, his failure to instruct solicitors to assist him, except when it suited him, which, as I find below, he could well afford to do, and the constant and apparently intentional lack of complete disclosure throughout these proceedings, about which he would have to face difficult cross-examination, I am led to the conclusion that this is a cynical attempt to avoid this hearing, or to put it off indefinitely. I accordingly ordered the matter to proceed. Although only the petitioner has filed an up to date affidavit pursuant to Deputy High Court Judge Gill's order, I have been referred to those filed earlier in the proceedings by the respondent. I was at first of the view that I could not take these into account, as part of the order provided that no affidavit shall be relied on if the deponent is not present to be cross-examined, but Mr Coleman requested that I do so, if only to be able to take into account the respondent's explanations, and to see the extent of his non-disclosure. In any event, it may be that Deputy High Court Judge Gill had I mind, not the parties, who were required to attend for cross-examination in any event, but others whose affidavits had been filed at various times in the course of the proceedings. In the event, only the petitioner appeared and gave evidence.

BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

6. The parties were married on 23 September 1988, when the petitioner was 34 years of age and the respondent 39. There were two children of the marriage, Paul, born on 26 May 1989, and Madeline, born on 7 July 1991. Unhappy differences having arisen between the husband and wife, the respondent left the matrimonial home in December 1995 and they have not lived together since. As Judge Carlson noted in his judgment in respect of maintenance pending suit on 24 December 1997, it is not being unfair to the respondent's case to observe that he has shown very little interest since then in the welfare of his wife and the two children. There has been little contact, and the petitioner has received no direct financial assistance from the respondent since early 1997, and the sum ordered by Judge Carlson of $80000 a month from 1 January 1998 by way of maintenance pending suit, save as to sums recovered by her under garnishee proceedings, remains unpaid as to about $2,000,000.

7. Both parties come from comparatively wealthy backgrounds. At the time of the marriage the respondent was the chief executive officer of a company originally founded by his father, Tele-Art Ltd (held by British Virgin Islands company called Tele-Art Inc.) which was very successful and provided them with a comfortable, and possibly luxurious, lifestyle. Their first matrimonial home was a flat in Harbour City, Tsimshatsui, of about 2900 sq. ft, and the second, only slightly smaller, in Cox's Road, overlooking the Kowloon Cricket Club. They had two and sometimes three domestic helpers and a driver, and the petitioner had the use of two cars, latterly a Lexus and a BMW. They also had a 100 ft yacht, in the name of the company but used for family and business entertaining. They spent lavishly on travelling, staying at the best hotels and eating at the best restaurants. In short it was the lifestyle of the family of a rich and successful businessman. The evidence now, which I shall come to shortly, is that the respondent continues to enjoy a similar lifestyle, while the petitioner has had to restrict her spending to what she can now afford, which is far less than that she enjoyed before their separation.

8. When they first met in 1987, the petitioner, who has a master's degree in business, and is fluent in German, was working for American Express as a project manager. The respondent offered her an appointment as chief executive officer and president of a subsidiary of his company from 15 March 1988, which she accepted. She continued to work in this capacity, and to work with the respondent on a number of other projects for his other companies, after they were married, and, indeed, after the birth of their children, two domestic helpers being employed to enable her to do so. This involved numerous business trips abroad both with him and by herself, to Thailand and Ireland. However, shortly after the marriage the respondent stopped paying the petitioner's salary, citing difficult business conditions, and the fact that they were a partnership in marriage as well as in business and that the assets thereby created were for the family.

Mission Hills

9. One of the projects entered into was to build in China what is now known as Mission Hills Golf Club. It was the idea of a Mr David Chu, a friend of the respondent, and, with another friend and business associate, Mr Suraphan, it was agreed that they would invest a total of US$10,000,000 in it in the proportions of 55% from Mr Chu, 30% from Mr Suraphan, and 15% from the respondent, to which the petitioner would contribute some of her own money. A shelf company called Loxwin Ltd was formed for the purpose of holding the petitioner and respondent's 15%, however, the petitioner later discovered that it was never transferred to Loxwin Ltd but retained in his own name. Of the US$1,500,000 contribution this represented, the petitioner put in US$150,000, her mother invested US$200,000 and the respondent's father, US$250,000. The respondent has, however, described the father's payment to be an interest free loan to himself, which is relevant when considering the payment he received from the final settlement below. The petitioner discovered at a later stage that the respondent did not in fact pay any of the US$900,000 which was his share of the investment. Although it was intended that the project should be kept within the original investors' families, the respondent later invited a Mr Edward Ting, another friend and business acquaintance, to invest US$100,000, for which, the petitioner says, he made him pay US$200,000, the balance going to the respondent's company, Tele-Art Ltd.

10. The petitioner was closely involved with the Mission Hills project from the outset, being appointed director of marketing, sales and administration, as the only person in the group with the necessary experience for this role, but was paid no salary. At the same time she was doing a feasibility study on a project to build a factory in China to make disposable diapers, which did not come to anything as a result of the time she had to spend on the Mission Hills project, which became full time until she relinquished it at the end of 1994 when relations between the partners were becoming strained. The reason for this was partly a dispute over the timing of the sale of properties built at Mission Hills, but also because the project had cash flow problems and the respondent was going to be asked for his share of the investment. This was the first time that the petitioner knew that he had not paid. A settlement was arrived at whereby the respondent received 350 memberships in Mission Hills to buy out their 15%. These memberships were in turn put into a new company called Downing Group Ltd in which he informed the petitioner the shares would be assigned according to the original investments of their family and Mr Ting. Again, it was only later that the petitioner learned that the respondent had transferred the whole of Downing Group into a joint venture company called Strategic Holdings Ltd with two accountants who the petitioner had been led to believe were only advising on a fee basis. The accountants' shareholding in the joint venture company was 20%.

11. Believing that it was solely for the benefit of the family, the petitioner then embarked on marketing the memberships, of which a number were sold, many by way of post-dated cheques, leaving about 300 with the Downing Group by the time the parties separated in December 1995. Fearing that these would be sold by the respondent, without paying her and the other investors, the petitioner and her mother obtained an injunction on 24 March 1996 freezing the proceeds of sale. In fact, a sale did take place, to Mr Chu, the next day, 25 March 1996 for about $160,000,000, payable by post-dated cheques, which the petitioner obtained by virtue of the injunction. A settlement was eventually reached between her, her mother, Mr Ting and the respondent whereby a division of the proceeds of sale between the investors was agreed, the petitioner and her mother receiving a sum in the region of HK$50,000,000, of which the petitioner's share was about $22,000,000, and the respondent receiving over $100,000,000. Of the respondent's share, he claims that part was to be paid to his father. However, no evidence of such payment has ever been produced and I cannot therefore accept this assertion.

12. In his affidavits, the respondent has maintained that this settlement was intended to settle his obligations towards his wife upon divorce. This is clearly not so. It is an arrangement by which the profits in respect of the shares of each of the investors in Mission Hills were distributed and nothing more, and I am satisfied that the petitioner never agreed otherwise.

Other investments

13. At the same time as the Mission Hills scheme was in progress the respondent was arranging investments in other companies, in particular Bipolar Integrated Technology Inc. (BIT), and Golden Bridge Technology Inc. (GBT), both US companies, the investments coming from the proceeds of the sale of Mission Hills memberships by the Downing Group. The petitioner herself also contributed US$100,000 to BIT, which was intended as a loan but never repaid in spite of assurances by the respondent that it would. The BIT shares were bought out later by another company called PMC Sierra Inc. by way of a share exchange, and the respondent is the president and chief executive officer of GBT. I shall deal with both these companies when looking at the respondent's present financial situation shortly.

THE PETITIONER'S SITUATION

14. The petitioner is now aged 46. Although she is well qualified, she does not work so that she can devote her time as a single mother to her children. In any event, as she points out, securing employment may not be easy at her age. However, she intends, given working capital, to invest in new projects or set up her own business. She intends to stay in Hong Kong where her friends and social network are, and where she wishes her children to retain their contact with Chinese language and culture.

15. She owns the flat in which they now reside in MacDonnell Road, having purchased it for about $16,000,000 in 1997 from the proceeds of the Mission Hills settlement. It is now worth about $10,500,000. She also has a half share with her mother in a property in La Quinta, California, now worth about US$500,000 to $545,000.

16. The petitioner's only income is from time deposits holding the balance of her share of the Mission Hills settlement, and from the realisation of investments held before her marriage. Her expenses she puts at about $99,000 a month for herself and the household, and a further $32,437 for the children. None of those she has listed in the exhibit to her affidavit seem excessive, and I accept her evidence as to this and to her means generally.

THE CHILDREN

17. Paul is now attending Island School, while Madeline is at Glenealy Junior School. The petitioner is keen that they should retain contact with their Chinese culture, and to this end ensures that they receive additional tuition in Cantonese and Mandarin and mix regularly with children who speak those languages. She intends that they should attend universities in the USA in due course, the likely cost of which, by the time each is ready to go, for a four year course, will be between US$132,870 for a public university, and US$214,790 for a private university for Paul, and between US$149,293 and US$241,339 for Madeline. For the purpose of this application I will assume that they will attend a public university at the lower cost level. This expense will, however, largely be met by a gift made by the respondent's father, Robert Yuen, to each of his grandchildren towards the cost of their education at university. That for the petitioner's children is in the sum of US$110,250 each. As this will remain on deposit earning interest until each reaches the age of 18, I anticipate that it will have accumulated to a sufficient sum to cover most if not all of the expected cost. I accordingly propose to ignore the tuition element of their further education when assessing their future needs.

18. Of the sum of $32,437 monthly expenses for the children, $12,000 was, as at 31 August 2000, said to be for school fees, which have increased by an extra $2980 a month for Paul on his move to Island School, making $35417 at present. This can be roughly apportioned as to $19200 for Paul and $16217 for Madeline per month, and is the amount I consider appropriate for the respondent to pay for the children's maintenance. However, in spite of the respondent's assurances given to the court on earlier occasions throughout these proceedings that he will be responsible for his children's support and welfare, he has not voluntarily made any regular payments for them, whether ordered by the court or not, since the parties separated, and his record in this respect suggests that he is unlikely to do so in the future. Mr Coleman therefore invites me to order a lump sum payment sufficient to provide for them until they reach their majority or complete their education.

19. This seems a sensible course to take. Without the assistance of Duxbury calculation it will have to be a very rough estimate on my part, which I will round down to give the benefit of any miscalculation to the respondent. For Paul the total expenses until he is 18 will be $1,612,800, and for his expenses at university, less tuition fees, for four years, about $700,000, giving a total of $2,312,800. For Madeline, the figures are $1.751,436 and $778,416, giving a total of $2,529,852. Bearing in mind that the money is being paid as a lump sum now, I will round those totals down to $1,800,000 and $2,000,000 respectively, or US$230,000 and US$256,000, as the petitioner has requested the sums awarded to be denominated in US dollars for ease of enforcement if necessary in the USA.

THE RESPONDENT'S MEANS

Income

20. When the parties first married the respondent's main business was Tele-Art Ltd, a company originally involved in the manufacture of cameras and binoculars, but taken by him into digital watches and then electronics. Although he claimed in his first affidavit of means that he was paid $100,000 a month as chief executive officer, no tax returns have been disclosed to confirm this, and, in any event, from the evidence of the petitioner, it is apparent that all the family's expenses, as well as his own, were paid directly by the company, including rent for the family home, cars, yacht, and all credit card bills. It appears to have been treated like a private bank, and, as I have said above, it was able to provide them with a lifestyle of considerable luxury.

21. It has been the respondent's case throughout that Tele-Art has suffered financially over the years, and may well be wound up. He says he has no other source of income and that he largely lives off his credit cards which are paid by Tele-Art when possible. However, the evidence shows that he is still living at a very high level of expenditure and is occupying a large and expensive apartment in New York with his mistress. Further, information from the brochure and website of GBT show that he is the president and CEO of that company, and has been the Vice Chairman, Treasurer and a Director of GBT since its inception. It seems unlikely that he holds this position with no payment. There has been no recent disclosure about this at all or about his income from any other sources. From the evidence that is available of his level of expenditure, it is clear that he has access to considerable funds, and, I believe, a large income.

Assets

(1) Shares

22. A number of affidavits dealing with the respondent's shareholdings have been filed over the course of this litigation showing interests at some time in a number of companies, but for the purposes of this application I shall restrict my findings to just those I consider he now has substantial beneficial interests in.

23. The first of these is Tele-Art, whether the BVI and US companies, Tele-Art Inc., or the Hong Kong company Tel-Art Ltd, with its numerous subsidiaries. There have been a number of statements by the respondent in his affidavits about these companies, but limited to their financial problems. It is not clear what his beneficial interest is in them, and no accounts, audited or otherwise have been produced since those for 1996 to show their overall situation. Those that have show substantial profits until 1996, coincidentally the year that the parties separated, and a loss that year. All that has been produced since are lists of purported debts. In the absence of proper disclosure with respect to them, I draw the inference that they are viable companies and that the respondent has a substantial interest in them.

24. The respondent also claims to have no interest now in BIT, having sold his shares in BIT Holdings Ltd, the BVI company which held his BIT shares, to an entity called G Leib Enterprises Inc., another BVI company, in July 1997, and he has produced an agreement purporting to sell the shares. This transaction is, however, extremely dubious, not only in respect of the president of that company Gary Leib having been a close business associate and friend of the respondent, but the price purportedly paid, US$1,000,000, was less than the respondent had paid for them, and considerably less than their value when listed shortly thereafter. There is no other documentary evidence of the transfer, and none of any actual payment. Further, in August 1997, BIT was taken over by another company called PMC-Sierra Inc. and public documents show that BIT Holdings Ltd was issued with 341,126 shares in PMC-Sierra for its shares in BIT, and the respondent personally with 9663 shares, the ownership of which he has never disclosed. Further, the name of BIT Holdings in the document also has the words "Attn: Elmer Yuen c/o Robert Solomon". The value of each share being at the time US$31.37, the total value of BIT Holdings shares was US$10,701,122, and the respondent's own US$303,128. To have sold BIT Holdings Ltd for only US$1,000,000 a month earlier does not make sense, except as an attempt to try to divest himself of apparent ownership of a valuable asset. The obvious inference that I draw from this is that the purported agreement was a sham, that the respondent is still the beneficial owner of all the shares in the name of BIT Holdings as well as his own, and in so far as is necessary, I will grant the petitioner's application to set aside the purported transfer of them.

25. The evidence is that the shares in PMC-Sierra have split 2 for 1 twice since 1997, making the shareholding in the respondent's name now 38,652, and in BIT Holdings' name, 1,364,504. The price of these shares has, with the rest of the technology market, fluctuated over the last year, having reached a high point of US$250 last August and now standing at about US$75. Taking the last figure, the respondent's shareholding is now worth US$2,898,900, and that of BIT Holdings, US$102,337,800.

26. As I have already noted above, the respondent is the president and chief executive officer of GBT, and has been involved at a high level since its inception. He again claims to have no shares in this company, but there has been no disclosure as to its shareholders. Again there is a purported agreement to sell his shares to G Leib Enterprises, but with no other documentary evidence, and no evidence of payment, I am driven to the same conclusion that the transaction was a sham to hide his assets, and make the same order under s. 17 of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance.

27. At the time of the purported transfer the respondent had a total of 709,676 shares in GBT with options to purchase a further 403,722. I have no information as to their present value, but from the company's own publicity it is clearly a successful business at the cutting edge of technology. That it is highly regarded is clear from the fact that a Mr Bejjani recently joined the board of directors. Mr. Bejjani is a Principal of MSDWVP, Inc. and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter. MSDWVP is Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Venture Partners, which indicates that Morgan Stanley have themselves taken a financial interest in the company, probably as a prelude to its going public. If this happens, the respondent can safely be assumed to be in a position to make larger profits than he has already done with his ownership of these shares. It is difficult to estimate the value of his holding in this company without the information which must be available to the respondent and which he has failed to disclose, but it would be surprising if it were less than several million US dollars.

(2) Real Property

28. The respondent admits to an interest in a property in San Francisco, USA, which he claims to be 30%, and the value of it is agreed by the parties as US$600,000. He denies having an interest in any other property.

29. The apartment in which he resides in New York, 44A Trump Tower International, he claims is owned by his father's Hong Kong company Safari Development Company. However, there is ample evidence that it is the respondent who is the owner. In proceedings between a Mr Israel Asper and Safari Development in New York in respect of a dispute over sale of this property, a note exhibited to an affidavit in the respondent's own handwriting names him as the owner, and a newspaper article describes the dispute as being between Mr Asper and the respondent. Further, the Safari Development referred to is clearly a company of the same name as the father's incorporated in the Bahamas by the respondent, and the address given by the respondent for it is that of the apartment. The father himself has denied to the petitioner that he owns the apartment.

30. Again I am drawn to an inevitable conclusion that the respondent is the owner of this property, and has sought to conceal that ownership.

31. The value of the apartment is not agreed. It was purchased for some US$4,000,000 in 1997. Since then it has been on the market on more than one occasion. The sale agreed with Mr Asper was for US$8,000,000 in 1999, and I have been shown a recent advertisement for its sale at a price of US$14,000,000. Even allowing for the outstanding mortgage on the property of some US$5,000,000, and a possibly inflated asking price, the value to the respondent is still in excess of US$7,000,000.

(3) Other assets

32. There has never been any clear explanation from the respondent as to how he disposed of the proceeds of the Mission Hills settlement in excess of $100,000,000. He frequently claims in his affidavits that any money received was paid to Tele-Art to help its cash flow and pay debts. However, there is no documentary evidence of any such payments. While the parties were selling the Mission Hills memberships through Downing Group before that, money received was being invested in BIT and GBT, but again there is no clear documentary evidence of how much and where it was invested.

33. The petitioner has produced to me copies of a statement of account in the respondent's name with Lehman Brothers Inc. of New York. While there is only a small sum of money shown, it is further evidence that the respondent has other accounts and interests that he has not disclosed.

34. As with so much of the respondent's assets, the lack of proper disclosure means that I have to draw inferences and make assumptions. But this is clearly a case where the maxim omnia praesumuntur contra spolitorem must be applied, as the respondent has in my view deliberately and with the utmost bad faith failed to disclose his means and assets, and taken steps to try to disguise or hide them. As Kempster JA said in Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation v Chan Yiu-wah [1988] 1 HKLR 457, at p. 500:

"the maxim omnia praesumuntur contra spolitorem which can, I believe, loosely be regarded both as an aspect of the more general proposition that a party should not be allowed to gain an advantage from his own wrong and an admonition to judges to use their common sense when considering their approach to a party's destruction of or failure to produce a document or record which might materially assist an opponent in the proof of his case."

35. Here, if I have had to draw inferences regarding the respondent's wealth not to his advantage, then he has no-one to blame but himself. He is clearly an astute businessman and used to dealing largely through companies in tax havens where both the extent of assets and their ownership can be concealed. On the evidence I have I am satisfied that he is an extremely wealthy man with total assets well in excess of US$100,000,000.

36. I might also add that he is the only son of another very wealthy man, who only recently donated US$1,000,000 to an educational trust in Shanghai.

CONCLUSION

37. Although this marriage lasted for less than 8 years, it is apparent that the petitioner's contribution to it, and to the respondent's businesses, was enormous. She was largely left to deal with the household and to bring up the children single-handed, while he attended to his business interests. At the same time she was obviously used by the respondent as an unpaid, but highly qualified and effective, executive. The success of the Mission Hills project alone was largely due to her efforts. I am satisfied that the present wealth of the respondent is to a great extent due to her work in his businesses during their marriage. This is not to deny the obvious ability of the respondent as a businessman, who has expertly made the most of his opportunities, his investments and his management expertise to place himself in the position he is today. But the award I make to the petitioner must reflect the contribution she has made to that wealth rather than an assessment of her specific needs.

38. Taking all the parties' circumstances into account, the fact that no maintenance at all was paid prior to the order for maintenance pending suit, and those matters to which I have to have regard under s. 7 of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance, I consider that a fair amount for the petitioner to receive as a lump sum to meet her requirements and reflect her contribution to the marriage and the respondent's business, would be US$10,000,000. I express this, as well as the amount I find payable in respect of the children, in US dollar terms at the request of the petitioner to assist enforcement if necessary in other jurisdictions.

39. I find that there is no merit in the respondent's own application for ancillary relief, which is accordingly dismissed.

40. My orders are accordingly:

(1) The respondent will pay to the petitioner for her own use the sum of US$10,000,000, or the Hong Kong dollar equivalent at the time of payment;

(2) The respondent will pay to the petitioner for the maintenance and education of the two children of the family the sum of US$230,000 for Paul, and US$256,000 for Madeline, or the respective Hong Kong dollar equivalents at the time of payment;

(3) Upon payment of these sums all orders and injunctions in favour of the petitioner will be discharged, but will otherwise remain in force until further order of the Court, and she is similarly released from any undertakings given in these proceedings;

(4) The purported agreements dated 31 July 1997 and 10 October 1997 for the sale of 1,000 shares in BIT Holdings Ltd and 709,676 shares and options to purchase 403,722 shares in Golden Bridge Technology Inc. be set aside;

(5) The respondent's application for ancillary relief will be dismissed;

(6) These orders are in full and final settlement of all claims for ancillary relief either party may have against the other;

(7) Liberty to apply.

COSTS

41. Mr Coleman has sought to persuade me that this is a case where costs should be awarded against the respondent on a higher basis than usual in view of his conduct throughout, his lack of disclosure, and his breach of an injunction by disposing of the sum of $15,500,000 in court in respect of other actions in 1998. While I share his views to a large extent that his attitude to the welfare of his wife and children, and his almost cynical lack of cooperation in the disclosure of information, are to be condemned, I am not entirely satisfied that this should be by way of an unusual costs order. His lack of disclosure has already resulted in my drawing of inferences about his means adverse to his interests, and an unwillingness to provide for one's family is not unusual in cases such as this. As to the matter of the injunction, this has already been reflected in the order for costs made by Judge Carlson at the time. I accordingly make an order nisi that the costs of these proceedings and those costs reserved prior to this hearing be taxed and paid by the respondent on a party and party basis.

Representation:

Mr Russell Coleman, instructed by Messrs Hampton, Winter & Glynn, for the Petitioner

The Respondent in person (absent)