Read the full judgment text of HCMP 489/2013 on BabelCite. This Court of First Instance judgment was delivered on 28 June 2013 before Deputy High Court Judge B Chu (Bebe Pui Ying Chu).
Family law – financial provision for child of unmarried parents – Guardianship of Minors Ordinance (Cap 13) s 10(2) – periodical payments and lump sum – assessment of parents' financial resources – third party assistance – fighting fund – security for periodical payments – application to vary interim maintenance – adjournment of trial. The litigation between the Applicant father and the Respondent mother over their daughter ILB had been ongoing for almost five years in three jurisdictions, with previous proceedings resulting in Parker's Judgment under Schedule 1 of the UK Children Act 1989, subsequently discharged by a Consent Order in August 2012. The Mother applied under the Guardianship of Minors Ordinance for financial provision for ILB, including interim maintenance of HK$1,460,000 per annum, and the Father applied to vary the 2nd Interim Maintenance Order downwards to HK$120,000 per month. The Court refused the Father's application for an adjournment of the trial as the proceedings were not new, the Father had lawyers in three jurisdictions, and his claimed business commitments were not supported by evidence; the best interests of ILB required an expedited final hearing. On the Father's financial resources, the Court found him still a very wealthy man with net assets of at least US$49m (about HK$380m), rejecting several claimed liabilities as either contingent, restructured, or already settled favourably, and accepting that the Father had understated the value of his 41.59% interest in SPL. On the Mother's financial resources, the Court accepted she had minimal independent means, her income from B Trust and her father had stopped, and applied KEWS v NCHC to find the loans from Mr C were 'soft' loans constituting a continuing resource, but these should not reduce the Father's primary maintenance obligation for ILB. The Court applied the Re P principles and Parker's Criteria adapted for Hong Kong, finding a reasonable budget of HK$290,000 per month comprising HK$150,000 for housing, HK$60,000 for general expenses, and HK$80,000 for ILB's personal expenses, with the Father to pay school fees direct. On lump sums, the Court awarded HK$3.35m in total (HK$1.4m for set-up/decoration, HK$0.75m for car, and HK$1.2m for arrears of rent from May 2012), as the power under s 10(2)(a) of the GMO was restricted to immediate and non-recurring needs. A 'fighting fund' of HK$2.5m was refused as the Father's conduct did not reach the level in Al-Khatib v Masry or Ben Hashem v Al Shayif, and the application for security of HK$32.13m was adjourned with liberty to restore. The Father was ordered to pay the Mother's costs with a certificate for two counsel.
Legal issues: Father's application for adjournment of the trial · Assessment of Father's financial resources · Assessment of Mother's financial resources and earning capacity · Determination of reasonable budget for ILB's housing · Determination of reasonable budget for ILB's general and personal expenses · Lump sum awards for set-up, car, and arrears of rent · Whether a 'fighting fund' should be awarded · Whether security for periodical payments should be ordered
Outcome: The Father was ordered to pay HK$290,000 per month as periodical payments for the benefit of ILB from 1 January 2013, with credit for amounts already paid, plus a lump sum of HK$3.35m. The Father was ordered to pay the Mother's costs with a certificate for two counsel. The application for a 'fighting fund' was refused. The application for security was adjourned with liberty to restore.
Cites 2 cases