Read the full judgment text of FCMC 002825/1998 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment before Deputy District Judge Tracy Chan.
Matrimonial Causes – Variation of Maintenance Order – Consent Order – Enforceability – Lump Sum – Periodical Payment – Costs – The parties were married in 1981 and divorced in 1998. A First Consent Order in 1998 set maintenance payments. A Second Consent Order in 2004 varied the payments with undertakings. The Respondent defaulted on payments, leading to an application for variation. The court found the First Consent Order enforceable due to the Respondent's default, as the Second Consent Order constituted a situation of forbearance to sue. The lump sum order was not varied as the court had no power under s.11 Cap 192 for orders made under s.5(2)(c). The periodical payment for the Child was varied to HK$6,000 per month from November 2005, considering the financial positions of parties and the needs of the Child. The periodical payment for the Petitioner was discharged as it seemed to be the parties' intention. Costs were awarded against the Respondent, except for the hearing on 11th October 2006 where the Petitioner's solicitors were ordered to show cause due to lack of preparation.
Legal issues: Enforceability of First Consent Order · Variation of Lump Sum Payment · Variation of Periodical Payments · Costs
Outcome: First Consent Order enforceable; Lump sum order not varied; Periodical payment for Child varied to HK$6,000 per month; Periodical payment for W discharged; Costs awarded against Respondent
Cites 1 case