Read the full judgment text of CACV 42/2002 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 29 October 2013 before Judge Bruno Chan.
Costs – Children cases – Guardianship of Minors Ordinance – Financial provision – Disparity in wealth – Unreasonable conduct – District Court – In this decision on costs following a judgment on custody and maintenance under the Guardianship of Minors Ordinance (Cap.13), the Court considered whether an order for costs should be made in favour of the Applicant Mother despite the general principle that costs are usually not ordered in children cases. The Court noted that while costs prima facie follow the event in financial provision claims, the starting point in children cases is no order to avoid exacerbating tensions between parents. However, the Court retained discretion to award costs where there is marked disparity in wealth or unreasonable conduct. The Mother sought all her costs exceeding HK$4.2 million, arguing she was obliged to bring proceedings and faced a vast disparity in means compared to the Father who incurred over HK$5.6 million. The Father argued for no order, citing the Mother’s unreasonably high demands and litigation conduct. The Court found that while there was a marked disparity in wealth, the Mother’s unrealistic demands throughout the proceedings contributed significantly to the staggering combined legal costs of close to HK$10 million. The Court also noted the Mother’s failure to seek legal aid despite the disparity. Unlike in LGA nee P v LKKD where costs were awarded to preserve a lump sum, here the bulk of the award was periodical payment for rent. The Court held that a fair order was for the Father to bear 70% of the Mother’s costs, taxed on a party and party basis, with credit for the HK$750,000 already paid. This order balances the disparity in means against the Mother’s conduct in inflating costs through unrealistic claims.
Legal issues: Costs order in children cases involving financial provision · Disparity in wealth and conduct justification
Outcome: Father to bear 70% of the Mother’s costs
Cites 1 case