Cpy v. Ksf
|
FCMC 2256 /2005 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION MATRIMONIAL CAUSES SUIT NO. 2256 OF 2005 ----------------------------
Before : HH Judge Bruno Chan in Chambers. Date of Hearing : 28th October and 24th November 2011. Date of Judgment : 6th December 2011. ----------------------- JUDGMENT ----------------------- 1.This is the Petitioner Wife’s variation application against the Respondent Husband for increase of his maintenance for their only child under a consent order made at the time of their divorce on 14th September 2005 from HK$10,000 to HK$15,000 per month under her summons issued on 5th January 2011, and such higher or additional sums including for the child’s dental expenses as the court thinks just at the trial held some 10 months after the summons, on the grounds that the needs and expenses of the child, a son now almost 12 and just entered secondary school, have gone up substantially over the years to the current average amount of more than HK$27,000 per month, and that with her own limited income as a free-lance music teacher earning just over HK$10,000 per month and much less than the Husband, it is only fair and necessary that he should increase his maintenance for their son accordingly. 2.The Husband, a manager at a major telecom company earning an income in excess of HK66,000 per month, accepts that the son’s needs and expenses have increased since 2005 but not as much as the amount claimed by the Wife which he believes have been exaggerated, and proposes that an increase to HK$13,000 per month would be sufficient and reasonable, which he has since September 2011 been paying, and which he contends to be more in line with an agreement made the Wife at the time of their divorce that each party shall be responsible for their son’s future expenses in equal share. 3.This alleged agreement of the Husband is however disputed by the Wife who insists that it never existed, nor would it make any sense given the great disparity between their respective income, hence the application had to run its full course including a trial for 1 ½ days over what seems to be a relatively small difference between HK$2,000 and $3,000 per month, which is clearly and insanely disproportional to the court’s time and resources spent as a result as well as a combined legal costs of the parties which I understand to be well over HK$100,000. 4.Apart from the issues over the amount of the child’s expenses and whether there was any agreement between the parties to equally share them, the Husband also takes issue over the level of the Wife’s income, but there is no dispute over his own means or ability to meet her claims for the child. However, before I consider the parties’ evidence over these issues, it would be helpful to state the relevant background leading to the matter now before me. Background 5.The parties were married on 28th September 1997 when the Wife was a 22 year old student studying music at the Hong Kong Academy for Performance Arts, and the Husband was then 25 and a marketing executive, while their son was born 2 years later on 10th December 1999, and as noted above is now aged almost 12. 6.Upon completing her studies the Wife started to work as a music teacher, and later the parties jointly bought a flat in Tai Po for their matrimonial home. Unfortunately they began to experience marital problems in about 2004 which subsequently led to the Wife moving out of their matrimonial home with the child in January 2005 and then filed for divorce in these proceedings in March of the same year. 7.Eventually the parties were able to reach overall settlement after attending mediation, the terms of which were then made a consent order of the court on 19th December 2005 in which, inter alia, custody of the child was granted to the Wife with reasonable access to the Husband, that their former matrimonial home be sold with the sale proceeds distributed under certain arrangements not relevant to the present application, and that the Husband shall pay the Wife HK$10,000 per month as maintenance for the child, which is the subject of her present application for variation (PB : 012 – 015). 8.Since the divorce the parties have each entered into a new relationship, with the Wife taken up cohabitation with her present boyfriend, a television director, in a rented 2-bedroom flat in Tai Po together with the child and a domestic helper, while the Husband has since re-married and is now residing with his present wife in Tsuen Wan. 9.On 5th January 2011 the Wife filed her application now before me by way of a summons returnable on 24th March 2011 for an increase of the said maintenance to HK$15,000 per month. She was then acting in person and in her 1st Form E filed on 18th January 2011 in support, she put her income at HK$12,000 per month on average but with a monthly expenditure of HK$44,880, including the son’s own personal expenses just over HK$10,000, plus an anticipated further expenses of more than HK$8,000 by September 2011 due to raises to her rent and the son entering secondary school. 10.At the hearing on 24th March 2011 the Husband represented by his present solicitors asked for time to file his Form E in response, which caused the application to be adjourned to 23rd May 2011. In his Form E filed on 13th April 2011, the Husband affirmed his income to be HK$66,020 per month with a total monthly expenditure of HK$61,484 and hence had the means to meet the Wife’s request, but raised the issue of the alleged agreement to be responsible for only half of the son’s expenses, and more significantly his wish to seek a variation of the custody order of the son in his favour due to alleged disharmonies between the Wife and her boyfriend which may affect her ability to render proper care for the son. 11.At the returned hearing of the Wife’s application, the Husband confirmed his request for variation of the custody order, and not surprisingly it was opposed by the Wife, and hence the hearing was again adjourned pending the social investigation report, while the Husband was also ordered to provide further particulars to the Wife pursuant to her earlier request. 12.The social investigation report dated 21st July 2011 however was not in support of the Husband’s request, as it found that the child has been in close and harmonious relationship with his mother and her boyfriend, that he has been properly taken care of, and that he had expressed his wish to continue to live with his mother and under her care. 13.As a result the Husband at the next hearing on 4th August 2011 decided not to pursue his custody application, and instead offered to increase the child maintenance to HK$13,000 staring 1st September 2011, with an annual increment of 5%, which offer as noted above was not accepted by the Wife, and hence her application was set down for trial during which only the Wife was called to give oral testimony. 14.It would be relevant to also point out that the Wife obtained legal aid shortly before the trial during which she was represented by Ms Choy, while the Husband instructed Ms Seto as his counsel, and as a result as noted above the parties have incurred a combined legal costs of more than HK$100,000, enough to pay for the monthly difference between them over their son’s maintenance for 4 years, which is so disproportional to their dispute that it absolutely defies any logic but is sadly so common in this jurisdiction. Nevertheless, before turning my attention to the evidence before the court, it would be useful to first set out the applicable legal principles. Applicable Legal Principles 15.The powers to vary an order for periodical payments, including those for a child of the family, are conferred by s. 11 of Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance, Cap. 192 (MPPO), and (7) of the section provides that :
16.While it seems from (7) that normally the earlier order would not be varied unless there has been a material change in the circumstances between the parties, but as pointed out by Tang V-P in HCTT v HCTT (CACV 380 of 2007), the jurisdiction of the court to vary is untrammelled, agreeing with Ormrod LJ in Lewis v Lewis [1977] 1 WLR 409 when he said that the power of variation under section 31(7) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, upon which our section 11(7) is based, was conferred with the intent that (p412) :
17.That the court may have unfettered discretion does not of course mean that the earlier order, whether made by consent or not, carries no weight, and how much weight should be accorded to it must depend on the circumstances of each case, as Cazalet J said in Garner v Garner [1992] 1 FLR 573, at p.581 :
18.The proper approach to such an application has in fact been summarised by the Court of Appeal in AEM v VFM (Variation of Maintenance) [2008] HKFLR 106, in that the court should look at the matter afresh and make an order that is reasonable in the current circumstances, having regard to what extent the means of the parties have changed since the original order was made, as well as those matters under s. 7 of MPPO in order to achieve fairness within the context of these matters and in all the circumstances of the case. 19.It is with these principles in mind that I now consider the evidence before me, starting with one of the major issues between the parties : whether there was any agreement under the consent order for the parties to share their son’s expenses equally as alleged by the Husband. Any Agreement to Share Maintenance Equally 20.The Husband’s case, first stated in item 1.14 of his Form E (PB : 68), is that the approach taken by the parties when they entered into the agreement embodied in the consent order was that they shall each contribute to their son’s maintenance equally, and since his expenses were then estimated at around HK$20,000 per month, hence the Husband agreed to pay HK$10,000 for his maintenance as reflected in that order. 21.The Wife denies that there was any such agreement between them, as it was simply impractical and unrealistic due to the great disparity in their income at that time and up to now. A perfectly logical argument in my view indeed. It is quite common for parents to agree to share their child’s future needs and expenses upon their divorce, in particularly when both are earning, but how such sharing is to be apportioned between them must necessarily depend on their respective financial means, resources and ability. If they are similar, one would expect a more or less equal portion, but otherwise common sense entails that the parent with better financial resources to assume a bigger share of the responsibility, in particularly when it involves a relatively substantial monthly sum as in the case here. 22.Henceforth the 1st question to ask must be : What were the financial positions of the parties at the time of the consent order? No Form E had been filed by either parties before the consent order was made, but it is common ground that their jobs then were essentially the same as today, and that they reached overall settlement through mediation, hence it would be safe to assume that they were well aware of the financial circumstances of each other before reaching the consent order. This is in fact the Wife’s evidence given at the trial. 23.Her evidence is that she was then earning between HK$14,000 and $16,000 per month, and although the Husband was between jobs at the time of mediation, he used to earn a much higher income, and was expected to be able to continue to do so. As for their son’s monthly expenses at that time, she denies that they were as much as HK$20,000 as alleged by the Husband, but only around HK$12,000 to $13,000 as he was then only 6. Hence it was suggested by their mediator that the Husband should bear the bulk of the expenses at HK$10,000, to which both of them agreed. 24.As noted above the Husband did not take his stand in the witness box at the trial, and hence there was no evidence from him to rebut the Wife’s, but Ms Seto submits on his behalf that the agreement was reflected in and consistent with other terms in the consent order under which the parties agreed to equally share the initial hiring expenses of a domestic helper such as agency fees, visa charges, air ticket, etc. but excluding the monthly salary, and the son’s moving expenses (PB : 12), and she therefore asks rhetorically that if the parties had indeed intended that the Husband should bear a substantially larger portion of the son’s maintenance than the Wife at that time, why then did they not so provide in respect of these 2 heads of expenses as well? 25.The simple answer, in my judgment, is that these 2 heads of expenses were one off or of non-recurring nature as evidenced by the clear exclusion of the salary of the domestic helper, and certainly relatively insignificant and well within the Wife’s means and ability to pay her half share notwithstanding her much lower income compared with the much more substantial amount involved with their son’s maintenance on monthly basis and for years to come. In fact, Ms Choy for the Wife may well also ask rhetorically a stronger question in reply : If indeed there was such an agreement for the parties to contribute equally towards their son’s monthly maintenance, given their equal contribution towards those 2 heads of expenses so clearly and unambiguously stated in the consent order, why did they not state the same with their son’s maintenance in the same order? 26.In my judgment the agreement to equally share those 2 heads of non-recurring expenses as stated in the consent order does not necessarily reflect or infer that there was also an agreement to equally share the son’s monthly maintenance between the parties, and in the absence of any other evidence from the Husband either to support his contention or to dispute the Wife’s evidence as to the large disparity over their respective income and financial resources, I am not persuaded that there was any such agreement to equally share the son’s maintenance. 27.In any event, with the passing of some 6 years since the consent order, it is no longer relevant in my view whether such agreement did exist or not back in 2005. If it did, there is nothing to stop the Wife now from asking the court to disregard it due to a material change in the circumstances, and for the same token if it never existed, there is nothing either to stop the Husband from arguing that he should now only bear half of the son’s current expenses given the parties’ current circumstances, of which the court of course shall have regard, in particularly as to any material change therein, and I propose to start with those of the Wife considered together with the son’s for convenience sake. The Wife’s Financial Circumstances 28.As noted above the Husband at the trial took issue with the monthly amount of income claimed by the Wife at HK$12,000 in her first Form E and an even lower figure of HK$10,600 some 10 months later in her 2nd Form E, on the basis that she had failed to include additional income that she has been able to earn by running some music classes during the school’s summer break. 29.The Wife’s explanation is that for the past year she gave music lessons for 4 local schools at a combined average sum of HK$12,000 per month but for 10 months only as school closes for 2 months for summer vacation, during which she would have to supplement her income by running some summer classes, as she did in the previous 2 summers for which she earned HK$8,700 and HK$4,000 respectively, of which she did already include in her calculation of her average income in her Form E, but that since September 2011 her income from the 4 schools has come down to only averaging HK$10,000 per month due to less demands. 30.As evidence she has produced written confirmations by those 4 schools of her income (PB : 217 – 221), as well as full sets of bank statements of all her disclosed accounts some even going back to 2009, plus numerous additional information pursuant to 3 very extensive requests by those representing the Husband for further and better particulars of her income and financial information (PB : 154 – 236, 264 – 287). It is also her evidence that her boyfriend, who earns HK$25,000 - $30,000 per month according to the said social investigation report, would pay her HK$8,000 to $9,000 per month or even more towards their household expenses and to assist her financially whenever she is in needs. 31.Ms Seto for the Husband however submits that if this is indeed the level of income that the Wife earns, then she would not have been able to maintain her monthly expenses either at her earlier figure of HK$44,880 stated in her 1st Form E, or her updated figure of HK$50,364 in her 2nd Form E of 10 months later, as even if one were to take into account of her boyfriend’s contribution and the Husband’s maintenance for the son, Ms Seto argues that the Wife would still have an impossible deficit of some HK$29,000 per month while without incurring debts, which just goes to fuel the Husband’s suspicion that she has not fully or frankly disclosed her income. 32.Ms Seto further argues that such a budget is still not possible even when the Wife tried to explain away the discrepancy under cross-examination by claiming that she has led a frugal life by not spending or by cutting down on her personal expenses such as clothing and outside meals, which would only save her no more than HK$6,000 and that the monthly deficit would still be insurmountable without going into debts or loans, of which she however claims to have none. 33.In support of her argument, Ms Seto points to the Wife’s HSBC savings account statements which show regular deposits totalling between HK$26,000 and HK$44,000 per month for the past 12 months (PB : 349 – 358), and which she believes to be part of the Wife’s income, clearly much more than the average amount claimed by her at HK$10,600. 34.Those bank statements in deed span over a period of 12 months from October 2010 to September 2011, and show a total deposits of some HK$460,000 at an average of about HK$38,000 per month on my calculation, but it would not be right or accurate to say that all these deposits must necessarily be the Wife’s income, as she had already explained in her several answers to the Husband’s requests for further and better particulars that some of the deposits were from her siblings for their parents or other purposes, others were household monies from her boyfriends as well as the son’s maintenance from the Husband, and none of them were seriously challenged or cross-examined during the trial. 35.Contrary to Ms Seto’s view, I do not find anything wrong with the Wife’s explanation of cutting down her own personal spending to meet her monthly budget rather than living on debts or loans, nor is there anything wrong for her to put down in her expenditure in her Form E of what she thinks she reasonably needs rather than what she is actually able to afford pending the court’s determination of her application. If indeed she had sufficient resources to meet her monthly needs, she would not have found it necessary to take out this application in the first place. 36.Perhaps Ms Seto’s doubt over the Wife’s claimed income level as being too low can be explained by what seems to be a mistaken belief on her part over the musical instrument which the Wife teaches, as she has described her as a piano teacher in her closing submission when in fact she teaches the yangqin (揚琴), a traditional Chinese musical instrument much less popular than say the piano or violin amongst Hong Kong students in my view and with no disrespect to the Wife, which may well account for the apparently lower level of her income. Furthermore, according to his affirmation filed on 18th May 2011 in support of his then custody application, it seems that the Husband also accepts that the Wife’s earning capacity or opportunity is fairly restricted (PB : 248). 37.In the premises and having seen and heard the Wife in evidence, I am satisfied that she has already fully and frankly disclosed her income at an average sum of about HK$10,000 or so per month, and that she has no other assets of any substance. I shall next turn to consider her expenses, together of course with the son’s needs within her household. The Wife’s Expenses and the Son’s Needs 38.The Wife’s first set of monthly expenditure of HK$44,880 as stated in her 1st Form E of January 2011 was made up of HK$23,930 for her household of 4 persons including rental of HK$14,300, utilities of HK$1,500, food and other household items of HK$5,000, and HK$3,580 for the salary of the domestic helper (item 4.1), HK$10,750 for her own personal expenses (item 4.2), and HK$10,150 for the son’s expenses (item 4.3) (PB : 38 – 39). 39.However she had also included additional anticipated expenses in the near future under item 4.4 of the Form E, such as increment to her rental by HK$2,500 per month of which as noted above did not materialized as she had subsequently moved to another flat at about the same amount as before, as well as dental and school-related expenses amounting to HK$5,600 per month for the son as from September 2011 when he was due to enter secondary school (PB : 39). 40.In her 2nd Form E filed 10 months later in October 2011 and shortly before the hearing, those additional expenses were already reflected in the appropriate items 4.1 and 4.3, thus bringing her total expenses accordingly to HK$50,364 per month, of which the son’s personal expenses stood at HK$18,814, with an anticipated further increase to his dental work in the sum of HK$2,275 per month starting from December 2011 (PB : 324 – 325). 41.In her evidence at the trial the Wife further explained that a 1/3 share of her household expenses under item 4.1 in the monthly sum of about HK$6,933 should be apportioned to the son, rightly so in my view and not seriously disputed by the Husband, as well as his overseas field trip expenses average out at HK$1,500 per month, bringing his total expenditure to just over HK$27,000 per month. 42.As noted above Ms Seto’s cross-examination of the Wife as to these various expenses at the trial were mainly for the purpose of undermining her evidence as to her income and financial resources to meet them rather than disputing their factual existence, necessity or quantum, save for one relatively minor item of the son’s overseas field trip expenses which she submits may have overlapped with his holiday and computer expenses, hence bringing the son’s monthly expenses somewhat lower to HK$25,747.33 according to Ms Seto, but which the Wife insists are separate items as she did not know about the overseas field trip until much later when the son was 2 months into his 1st school term. Given the relatively minor amount involved, I do not find anything suspicious or inappropriate with this explanation of the Wife. 43.Other than that, it seems that it is not the Husband’s case to challenge the quantum of the son’s expenses, but rather that such expenses should be equally shared by the Wife, as Ms Seto argued in paragraph 21 of her closing submission : “ ... it is submitted that the Husband’s current offer of HK13,000 is more than sufficient to cover half of the Son’s current expenses of HK$25,747.33, if the Court accepts the Husband’s submission to give effect to the basis and effect of the Consent Order, namely to divide the Son’s expenses between the Husband and the Wife equally.” 44.Having however already rejected that argument that there was an agreement to share the son’s expenses equally at the time of the consent order for the reasons given above, the next question to ask of myself must then be : what should be the Husband’s contribution towards those needs and expenses of the son in the circumstances? To answer that it would of course be necessary for me to look into his current financial circumstances. The Husband’s Financial Circumstances 45.As noted above the Husband put his income at HK$66,020 per month in his Form E filed on 13th April 2011 (PB : 65, 78), without however any reference to any bonus or other benefits, but in his employment contract dated 31st December 2010 due to his latest promotion to be the General Manager of International Business and Development (PB : 291 – 299) produced pursuant to one of the Wife’s requests for further and better particulars, his income is actually made up of a basic salary of HK$47,520, a non-pensionable salary of HK$4,500, and a rental reimbursement up to HK$14,000 per month, which all add up to HK$66,020 per month. 46.The contract however also provides for an annual bonus payable in December of each year, with the targeted amount for 2011 set at HK$142,560. While it is stated to be payable at his employer’s discretion depending on its business results and his performance, it is certainly a significant amount that cannot be discounted from assessing his total income. As a matter of fact, according to his answer to the Wife’s 1st request, he received an even bigger bonus for previous year of 2010 in the sum of HK$228,100 (PB : 239 – 240), hence his targeted bonus for this year if paid will certainly bring his total income to HK$934,800 for the year, at an average sum of HK$77,900 per month. 47.In addition the Husband is also entitled to various other benefits under the said contract such as clubs entrance fees subsidy, medical scheme for him and his dependents, accident insurance coverage, sickness benefits as well as reimbursements for professional membership subscriptions. 48.He has disclosed no other assets of relevancy to the application now before me, save for perhaps a securities account with the Hang Seng Bank with shares worth about HK$498,000 at the time of his Form E in April 2011. I shall next turn to his expenses. The Husband’s Expenses 49.The Husband put his monthly expenditure at about HK$61,000 in his Form E including what he was then paying for the son’s maintenance of HK$10,000 (PB : 80 – 81). While he has all along maintained that there is no question of his ability to meet the son’s maintenance at the amount claimed by the Wife, and suggested that it would therefore not be necessary to closely examine his alleged monthly expenditure, of which I agree while not in details but certainly in a broad brush at least over certain items of his household expenses, of which he stated at just over HK$32,000 per month in total, with HK$15,500 for rent and HK$9,534 for car being the major items. 50.There is no question that he has been sharing his household with his present wife whom he married in 2007, and according to his said affirmation of 18th May 2011, she is a university graduate major in business administration, while the social investigation report referred to above also revealed that she now works as a manager in the same telecom business earning HK$40,000 per month, and that she recently in July 2011 purchased a 3-bedroom property in Tsuen Wan with the assistance of a bank mortgage with a monthly repayment of HK$12,000, where she and the Husband have since made their home. 51.While that report was never referred to at the trial and therefore its information disclosed above have not been formally admitted as evidence by either party, there is no question that they must have been provided by the Husband and his present wife to the social worker for the purpose of that report, and I do not think there is any challenge as to their accuracy or authenticity. 52.It is also true that the purchase of the property took place only after the Husband had filed his Form E and hence his rental payment of HK$15,500 is no longer necessary, while any contribution towards the monthly mortgage repayment of his wife’s property will no doubt be lower than that amount, and that his other household expenses may well also be different, but whatever they may now be, his present wife would be expected to make a fair contribution towards them as rightly submitted by Ms Choy, if she is not already doing so, in the same case of the Wife’s boyfriend sharing her household expenses, albeit not necessarily in equal share with the Husband. The point is that the Husband should not have to shoulder up his entire household expenses, as it appeared to be the case with what he had previously stated in his Form E, which should therefore free up even more of his income to meet his son’s needs and expenses. 53.In the premises and given the much greater monthly income of the Husband either individually at HK$66,020 before bonus or almost HK$78,000 after bonus as compared with the Wife’s at just over HK$10,000, or household wise by taking into account of the monthly income of his present wife at HK$40,000 compared with the boyfriend at HK$30,000 at the highest, it cannot be fair or reasonable in the circumstances to require the Wife to bear half of the son’s expenses, and henceforth any argument that the Husband should only be responsible for half of such expenses is simply untenable. Further and Additional Claims 54.It is also Ms Seto’s argument that since the Wife had clearly only sought an increase of the son’s monthly maintenance to HK$15,000 in her summons, it would be wrong or unfair to allow her to seek a further increase at the trial to HK$16,500, or for an order for the Husband to pay for the son’s dental operation within 14 days of her production of a certificate issued by his dentist for the charges, as Ms Choy has so proposed for the Wife in her closing submission. 55.While it is true that the Wife only sought an increase to HK$15,000 per month in her summons and nothing else, which was issued while she was acting in person in January 2011 and some 10 months before the trial, and while the lack of legal representation can never be the proper reason to allow the applicant to deviate from her original claim set out in her application, delay to hear such application through no fault of hers certainly can, especially when she had clearly stated in her 1st Form E, as well as in her 2nd Form E, as we have seen above, that there would be such additional expenses in the coming months from the issue of her summons, and that it is not as if the Husband had been caught by surprise by such claims, as evidence were clearly adduced by the Wife and upon which she was thoroughly cross-examined during the trial. 56.Furthermore, as noted above the court’s discretion in dealing with such variation applications is unfettered, in particularly in my view with those concerning a child whose needs are bound to change and evolve as he grows. Here his mother had clearly set out his additional expenses expected in the near future at the time of the issue of her application, and clearly in anticipation of his entering an important new stage of his education in secondary school in September 2011, but it was certainly not her fault that her application became delayed by the Husband’s subsequent custody variation application. In the premises I do not see why she should not be allowed to update and justify the son’s needs and expenses 10 months later at the trial, nor do I see how the Husband would be so prejudiced. 57.The same argument can be applied to her additional claim for him to bear the son’s dental operation expenses, but given that there were insufficient information or documentary medical evidence as to the necessity of such operation and its charges, I agree that the Husband should be allowed an opportunity to consider and to make his own research or enquiry, and if he so wishes to challenge such claim after the information has been provided to him as proposed by the Wife, in which case no doubt that particular claim may have to be restored for argument. However, unless the proposed charges turn out to be unreasonably high or beyond the Husband’s means, and failing better alternatives, I would expect the Husband to take the sensible and practical approach to accede to this claim so that the time and costs for bringing this matter back to court can be avoided. Backdating the Increase 58.Ms Choy also seeks an order to back date whatever increase that the court may make to the date of the Wife’s variation application, and according to her closing submission, that the son’s monthly maintenance payable by the Husband be increased to HK$15,000 dating back to 4th January 2011 until 4th September 2011 when it shall be further increased to HK$16,500, and that the total amount due under such increase at HK$50,500 be paid with 14 days of the order. 59.Ms Seto’s argument against backdating premised on the Wife’s claim based on her anticipated increase to her rental expenses which subsequently did not materialize while the additional expenses due to the son starting secondary school in September 2011 have already been met by the Husband’s voluntary increase to HK$13,000 must however be rejected by my findings above when I accepted the Wife’s evidence to apportion 1/3 of her household expenses to the son to bring his total needs to more than HK$18,000 per month at the time of her application. For the reasons given above, I would allow the increase to be dated back in the amount proposed by Ms Choy for the Wife as being fair and reasonable in the circumstances, but as it cannot be earlier that the date of her summons, hence the increase shall commence from 4th February 2011 instead. 60.There is one last item of payment which the Husband has proposed to pay to the Wife which I understand not in dispute, i.e. a sum of HK$3,248 for his share for her hiring of her present helper and for the son’s recent moving expenses. 61.Lastly on the question of costs, since the Wife is successful with her application, and with costs to follow the event, I fail to see how the Husband can resist that. Order 62.My order is therefore as follows :
Ms Choy of M/S B. Mak & Co. for the Petitioner. Ms Seto instructed by M/S Christine F.I. Ip & Young for the Respondent. | |||||||||||||||||