Read the full judgment text of CACV 92/2011 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 10 January 2012 before Hon Cheung JA, Hon Kwan JA, Hon Yam J.
Family law – financial provisions – variation of consent order – lump sum payable by instalments – periodical payment – Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance (Cap. 192) s.11 – Barder principle – finality of litigation – global financial crisis – asset depreciation – appeal dismissed – costs. The Court of Appeal dismissed the husband's appeal against the variation of a consent order for financial provision. The husband sought to vary the lump sum order due to the drop in asset value caused by the 2008 global financial crisis. The Court held that fluctuation in asset value is foreseeable and does not justify reopening the quantum of a lump sum order, emphasizing the public policy of finality of litigation. The Court also upheld the refusal to vary the periodical payment order. A provisional order for costs was made against the husband.
Legal issues: Variation of lump sum order under s.11 MPPO · Variation of periodical payment order
Outcome: Appeal dismissed.
Cited by 3 cases