Yau Mei Wah v. Li Chi Man

HCMP 535/2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 535 OF 2005

(On an intended appeal from FCMC No. 8191 of 2000)

______________

BETWEEN

______________

Before : Hon Tang JA in Chambers

Date of Decision : 24 March 2005

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

1.Leave to appeal from the Order of the deputy judge dated 2 February 2005 is refused.

2.The Order was made under section 11 of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance, Cap. 192 after the judge had heard evidence from both the husband and the wife.

3.The judge found the husband to be an honest and reliable witness (paragraph 21).  The judge also accepted that since the earlier decision of 9 January 2002, there had been substantial changes in the financial situation of the husband (paragraph 26).  On the other hand, the judge found that the wife had exaggerated her needs (paragraph 27).

4.Also it is clear from the judgment that the judge has had regard to all the circumstances of the case in accordance with section 11(7).

5.As for the proposed grounds of appeal, the first and second grounds of appeal basically concern finding of fact.  As I have said the judge was satisfied with the husband’s explanation after hearing his evidence.  The Court of Appeal would not be in the position to differ from the judge’s finding.

6.As for ground 3, the judge accepted that the debts were incurred as a result of the liabilities shouldered by the husband following the divorce.  More importantly, there is no evidence that they had not been properly incurred.

7.As for ground 4, there was no evidence that financial restructuring would be successful and improve the husband’s financial position.  If that was the wife’s case, evidence should have been led before the judge by her.  The Court of Appeal would not receive additional evidence.

8.As for ground 5, although the maintenance order has been terminated, in the event of further change in circumstances, the wife could apply for variation of the order for discharge.

9.For the above reasons, leave to appeal is refused.