Ml v. Yj

CACV 89/2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 89 OF 2008

(ON APPEAL FROM HCMC 13 OF 2006)

____________________________

BETWEEN

____________________________

Before : Hon Le Pichon, Cheung JJAand Sakhrani J in Court

Date of Hearing : 17 July 2009

Date of Decision : 30 July 2009

____________________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________________

Hon Le Pichon JA :

1.I agree with the decision of Cheung JA.

Hon Cheung JA :

2.The parties were not able to agree the terms of the maintenance of the children under paragraph 6 of the draft order of 17 June 2009 in respect of commencement date of the order, the amount to be set off and what funds in Court could be used for the payment of the maintenance. A hearing was held on 17 July 2009 for the parties to address the Court on this issue. Subsequent to the hearing, the parties agreed terms on paragraph 6 as follows :

‘ the order for maintenance pending suit dated 1^st September 2006 be discharged. Until further order the Respondent do pay HK$450,000 per month on the first day of each month as maintenance for the two children of the family, payment whereof is to be satisfied by payment to the Petitioner as follows :-

(1) there be forthwith payment out of Court to the Petitioner of HK$6,269.00;

(2) starting from 1^st August 2009 there be payment out of Court to the Petitioner of HK$450,000 per month, from the following funds standing in Court and paid in by the Respondent :-

(i) monies paid into Court as security for children’s maintenance (HK$618,629 (as at 20^th July 2009) plus all interest accrual on that account); and

(ii) monies paid into Court as security for costs (HK$1,378,514 (as at 20^th July 2009) plus all interest accrual on that account).

(3) Upon the whole of the sums and interests thereon as referred to in sub-paragraph (2)(i) and (ii) hereof have been exhausted, such sum of HK$450,000.00 shall be paid by the Respondent directly to the Petitioner’s solicitors on the first day of each following and subsequent month;’

3.Accordingly the agreed terms will replace the original paragraph 6 of the draft order.

4.The wife, however, has now raised an objection to the inclusion of the undertaking by the husband in the order. The undertaking forms part of the order and is properly included. Accordingly the draft order must contain a recital of the undertaking.

Hon Sakhrani J :

5.I agree.

Mr. Benjamin Yu, SC & Ms Anita Yip, instructed by Messrs Lo & Lo, for the Petitioner

Mr. Jeremy Chan, instructed by Messrs Hampton Winter & Glynn, for the Respondent