Royce Beynon v. Cynthia Maria Alves Beynon
Read the full judgment text of FCMC 614/1975 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment before Mr. Registrar Stapp.
Divorce – Ancillary Relief – Lump Sum – Periodical Payments – Disclosure – Matrimonial Proceedings & Property Ordinance – Cap. 192 – Husband Remarried – Pension – Security Comparison – Whether husband made full and frank disclosure – Whether quantum appropriate – Lump sum $150,000 awarded – Periodical payments $500 per month awarded – Costs to wife
Legal issues: Duty of Full and Frank Disclosure · Quantum of Ancillary Relief
Outcome: Lump sum of $150,000 awarded to wife; periodical payments of $500 per month awarded; existing order discharged.
|
FCMC000614/1975
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HONG KONG HOLDEN AT VICTORIA DIVORCE JURISDICTION -----------------
----------------- Coram: Mr. Registrar Stapp in Chambers. Date of Judgment: 8th October, 1977. Mr. F.A.L. Eddis, instructed by Messrs. P.H. Sin & Co. for Petitioner. Mr. G. Rodway, instructed by Messrs. Wilkinson & Grist for Respondent. ---------------------------------- ANCILLARY RELIEF ---------------------------------- 1. The respondent (the "wife") has applied for orders for a lump sum payment and for periodical payments, under S.4 of the Matrimonial Proceedings & Property Ordinance Cap. 192, following a decree nisi which was granted to the petitioner (the "husband") on 22nd November, 1975. 2. The parties were married on 10th November, 1951. The husband is now aged 56, and the wife 64. There is only one child, Susan, who was born on 30th June 1957, and was adopted by the parties on 23rd August, 1958. An order was made on 17th January, 1977 for the husband to maintain her. She was previously living with the husband, but no longer does so. 3. The husband came to Hong Kong in 1949 to work for British Oxygen (H.K.) Ltd. and continued working for them until 30th September this year, when he was obliged to retire. 4. At the time of his retirement as Managing Director he was earning a gross monthly income of $20,500, and he had already received a bonus of $70,833, in respect of the company's previous financial year. There were other considerable fringe benefits. He expects to receive a further bonus in respect of the company's last financial year. Having retired, he is now entitled to a pension from B.O.C. International Ltd. of Stg. £7,517.30 per annum. Of this amount he is entitled to have the lump sum of Stg. £21,046 commuted, which would leave him with a reduced pension of Stg. £5,715.74. If he remains in the Colony it appears that he will receive his pension free of tax, so far as the United Kingdom Government is concerned. 5. The husband is rather confident of finding gainful employment in the way of directorships or otherwise, in the Colony, and intends to remain in the same flat, which was recently furnished at considerable cost. 6. He remarried less than one year ago. His present wife is aged 35, and there are no children as yet. At the end of 1976, the husband advanced just over H.K.$300,000, which was invested in a house in Newbury, England, which is in the name of the 2nd wife. The overall outlay for the house, including repairs, furnishings etc. was in the region of Stg.£45,000. The husband has taken out a life assurance policy from which, in the likely case of his eventually predeceasing the 2nd wife, she will receive U.S.$100,000. He pays premiums of approximately H.K.$20,000 per annum for that policy. Furthermore, in such event she will continue to receive approximately half of the present pension from B.O.C. International Ltd. during her lifetime, unless she remarries. In addition she has been named as beneficiary of his will. 7. The husband and his 2nd wife have recently invested $25,000 each, to purchase a horse through the R.H.K.J.C. The husband also enjoys playing golf and club life in the Colony. They obviously live very well. 8. I find that the husband has not been full, frank and clear in his disclosure of his means to the court, which requirement was emphasized by Sachs J. in J. V. J. [1955] P.215 at p.227. For example, in his affidavits he did not record his share transactions accurately, he mis-stated his outlay in respect of the purchase of the Newbury property, and he tried to make out that he was short of funds to pay last year's tax. 9. On the other hand, I find that the wife has been open and frank with the court, as to her assets. Including cash, stocks and shares and jewellery they total just over $161,450. It may not have been necessary for her to continue to live in a small hotel room, having regard to the fact that she has been receiving $6,100 per month maintenance from the husband. However, she explained this on the basis of "saving for a rainy day". At the beginning of the marriage she apparently provided financial assistance to her husband, and eventually inherited almost $150,000 from her late father's company of Alves Ltd. It would appear that a considerable portion of her present assets is attributable to such source. 10. It was argued on behalf of the wife that she is in a weak position security-wise, especially when compared with the 2nd wife. Apart from the above matters, the wife is now too old to go to work, whilst the 2nd wife is young enough to do so. On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the husband, that because the wife is 8 years senior to him, he is unlikely to predecease her, and therefore that no security by way of a substantial lump sum payment is really needed by her. It was further argued that a lump sum payment such as that sought would considerably exceed the usual "one-third" rule, as to joint assets of the parties. 11. The wife seeks a lump sum payment of $150,000, whilst the husband claims that she should rest content with her present assets, and simply continue to receive one-third of the income from his earnings, and or, pension. Otherwise, the husband claims, he will have to commute a considerable part of his pension, which he is loath to do. 12. It is the Court's duty, under S.7 of Cap. 192, to consider all the circumstances of the case, including certain stipulated matters. 13. The parties obviously enjoyed a high standard of living, and the marriage lasted for some 24 years. The wife obviously made substantial contributions, such as financial assistance in the early stages of the marriage, looking after the adopted daughter, and maintaining the home for the husband. In the event of the husband predeceasing her, she will not enjoy the above-mentioned widow's pension from B.O.C. International Ltd. In considering "all the circumstances", I consider that in this particular case I must compare the security of the wife with that of the 2nd wife. As things have stood, the wife's position in this regard is so much inferior to that of the recently married 2nd wife. Apart from other benefits, the 2nd wife has a fine home to go to, whilst the wife is not provided for in this regard. 14. Having carefully considered all the circumstances of this case, I order the husband to pay to the wife a lump sum of $150,000, on or before 1st December, 1977. So far as periodical payments are concerned, the wife is not asking the court to base them at this stage, on the court's estimated earning capacity of the husband, but prefers to give him a chance to reestablish himself in business, before considering making realistic demands. I therefore order the husband to pay to the wife the rather nominal sum of $500 per month, commencing on 1st December, 1977, until further order. The existing order as to periodical payments of $6,100 per month is ordered to be discharged as and from the end of November, 1977. 15. I further award costs to the wife, with a certificate for counsel. I also grant liberty to apply, if necessary, in respect of the above orders. 16. Dated this 8th day of October, 1977.
Representation: |