Read the full judgment text of FCMC 4456/2013 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment was delivered on 22 August 2014 before Her Honour Judge Sharon D. Melloy.
Matrimonial Causes Ordinance (Cap 179) – Divorce – Unreasonable behaviour – Decree nisi – Costs – Whether wife behaved in such a way that husband cannot reasonably be expected to live with her – WhatsApp messages during hospitalization – Husband’s health issues – Living under same roof – Decree nisi granted – Wife to pay costs. This was a defended divorce petition in the District Court where the husband sought a decree based on the wife’s unreasonable behaviour under section 11A of the Matrimonial Causes Ordinance. The parties married in March 2003 and the husband, an American retired musician and academic, suffered from significant health issues including stage IV cancer of the oesophagus. The wife, a Chinese national working in the financial field, was the major breadwinner. The husband filed a second divorce petition in March 2013 after a previous reconciliation in 2011 failed. During the husband’s hospitalization in Taiwan for cancer treatment in late 2012 and early 2013, the wife sent aggressive and jealous WhatsApp messages which the husband found intolerable. The court applied the Livingstone-Stallard test to determine if a right-thinking person would conclude the husband could not reasonably be expected to live with the wife. The court found the wife’s conduct objectively unreasonable and subjectively intolerable for the husband, particularly given his health condition. The husband complained of nagging, jealousy, verbal and physical abuse. The court focused on the allegations surrounding the husband’s hospitalization and the WhatsApp messages. Although the parties continued to live under the same roof after treatment, the court accepted this was due to necessity rather than a resumption of cohabitation. The husband testified there was no possibility of reconciliation. The court granted a decree nisi of divorce based on the wife’s unreasonable behaviour. The wife was ordered to pay the husband’s costs of and incidental to the suit, including any costs reserved, to be taxed on a party and party basis if not agreed. The decree nisi was to be made absolute in 28 days time. The court also considered the case of Grenfell v Grenfell regarding the sufficiency of particulars pleaded. The court noted that it was not necessary to investigate every allegation when the pleaded facts were sufficient to grant a decree. The court also considered the case of Bradley v Bradley regarding living under the same roof after the last act relied on. The court agreed with the analysis that continuing to live with the other spouse does not necessarily produce the result that the petition must fail. The court found that the husband was at the end of his tether during the trial. The court accepted the husband's evidence that the wife's behaviour continued after his discharge from hospital. The court concluded that the marriage had broken down irretrievably. The court also considered Section 15A(4) of the Matrimonial Causes Ordinance regarding living together after the final incident. The court found that the period of living together was less than six months in some instances and that the circumstances were strained.
Legal issues: Whether wife behaved in such a way that husband cannot reasonably be expected to live with her
Outcome: Decree nisi of divorce granted based on wife’s unreasonable behaviour.
Cites 2 cases