Read the full judgment text of FACV 18/2012 on BabelCite. This Court of Final Appeal judgment was delivered on 15 February 2013 before Chief Justice Ma, Mr Justice Chan PJ, Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ, Mr Justice Hartmann NPJ and Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony NPJ.
Matrimonial law – ancillary relief – third party financial assistance – judicious encouragement – statutory interpretation – Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance Cap 192 ss 4, 7 – appeal – whether third party resources available at the discretion of relatives can be taken into account in assessing financial resources for periodical payments and lump sum orders – wife's serious intestinal condition requiring extensive medical care – husband's employment history and Kellogg/HKUST EMBA qualifications – husband's parents' substantial financial support (over $7 million in deposits, nearly $1 million in credit card bills, $1.6 million in gifts, $755,000 EMBA fees) – whether concept of judicious encouragement is a valid principle – proper approach is to ascertain extent of past assistance and likelihood of continuation in the foreseeable future – "judicious encouragement" should be abandoned as a distinct concept – court orders bind parties, not non-parties – s 7(1)(a) MPPO widely drafted to include "other financial resources" beyond legally owned assets – Husband's earning capacity plainly underutilised – EMBA graduates commanded average annual salary of US$465,774 – Wife's needs assessed at $42,500 per month – Wife's parents had spent over $2.4 million on her by trial – whether Court of Appeal correct to increase periodical payments to $42,500 a month and order lump sum of $1.5 million – Court of Appeal orders fully justified – appeal dismissed – costs order nisi for Wife.
Legal issues: Whether "judicious encouragement" is a valid principle for framing ancillary relief orders to encourage third party financial assistance · Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to increase periodical payments to $42,500 a month and order a lump sum of $1.5 million
Outcome: Appeal unanimously dismissed. Order nisi that the Wife (respondent) have the costs of and occasioned by the appeal, with liberty to apply within 14 days for a different costs order.
Cited by 5 cases