KB v. MS

FCMC 173/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES

NUMBER 173 OF 2015

----------------------------

-----------------------

J U D G M E N T

(Ancillary Relief)

-----------------------

1.  This is the trial on the petitioner wife (“W”)’s application for ancillary reliefs against the respondent husband (“H”).

Background

2.  Both parties to the marriage were born and raised in Pakistan. W was born in 1984 and is 33 years old.  H was born in 1980 and is 37 years of age.

3.  The parties were married in October 2008 in Pakistan by arrangement of their families.  W came to Hong Kong to join H in 2009.

4.  There is one child of the family (“the Child”), who was born in March 2010.

5.  The parties were separated in June 2012.  W filed a Petition for divorce on the ground of unreasonable behavior in February 2013 under Action No. FCMC 2064/2013.  W withdrew the Petition to facilitate reconciliation, which, unfortunately, was failed.

6.  W filed the present Petition on the ground of unreasonable behavior in January 2015.  H indicated that the divorce proceedings were contested.  No Answer was filed.

7.  By the Order dated 30 March 2015 made by Deputy District Judge A. N. Tse Ching, H was ordered to pay $1,000 per month for the interim maintenance of the Child to W.

8.  In June 2015, by way of amendment, W toned down her particulars of unreasonable behavior against H.  The matter was then proceeded on an uncontested basis.  The Decree Nisi was granted on 10 September 2015.

9.  On 30 September 2015, by consent W was granted the care and control of the Child, with supervised access be given to H.  However, the parties were unable to agree whether joint custody should be granted to the parties, or W should be granted sole custody.  The matter went to trial.  By the Judgment dated 11 March 2016 made by Deputy District Judge A. N. Tse Ching, W was granted the sole custody of the Child.

W’s case and her open proposal

10.  W took issue with H’s earning capacity.  H said he spent little time working for the indenting agent business that H and his brother own 25/75 in the brother’s favour.  W said H went to work from 9 am till 9 pm except on Friday afternoon after prayers.  W also did not accept H’s evidence that he did not receive any salary from the business. 

11.  W did not accept the valuation of the said partnership business by the single joint expert.

12.  H held two premier accounts with Hang Seng Bank in his name with which he traded shares and foreign currencies.  After the parties were separated, H closed the premier accounts and withdrew over $1.2 million. H said most of the money in the premier accounts belonged to his father and brother.  W contended that the money in the premier accounts was family asset to which she was entitled 50%.  She also did not accept H’s evidence that he spent $1 million of the said sum of $1.2 million on gold and gave the gold to his father and gave the remaining $200,000 in cash to his brother. 

13.  During the marriage, W’s salary was deposited to the parties’ joint account with HSBC to save money to buy a home in Hong Kong.  Without W’s knowledge and consent, H withdrew all the savings in the sum of $338,800 in the joint account.  W believed that H invested the said sum of $338,800 in the business with his brother, and/or somehow hid the money away from W.  W contended that she was entitled to the return of the said sum of $338,800.

14.  During the marriage, W had –

(a) 8 gold bangles (80g) (wedding gifts given by H’s mother)

(b) One gold necklace (30g) (wedding gifts given by H’s mother)

(c) One pair of earrings (15g) (wedding gifts given by H’s mother)

(d) Two finger rings (given by H)

(e) One gold chain (wedding gift by W’s mother)

(f) One pair of earrings (wedding gift by W’s mother)

(g) One finger ring (wedding gift by W’s mother)

(h) One chain and earrings of gold for the Child

15.  W said she was forced by H to leave the above mentioned gold jewellery with him in Hong Kong when W went to Pakistan in June 2012.  While H said he gave all of them to W after she came back to Hong Kong, W was saying that he refused to give the gold bangles, gold necklace and earrings, i.e. the wedding gifts given by his mother to W, on the pretext that he would need to return the same to his mother as the parties’ marriage had failed.

16.  W’s claim is for: -

(i) H to pay $5,570 per month for the Child’s maintenance to W;

(ii) Lump sum payment equivalent to 50% of the money withdrawn by H from the two premier accounts;

(iii) The return of the said sum of $338,800; and

(iv) The return of the above mentioned wedding gifts given by H’s mother to W.

H’s case and his open proposal

17.  H said that he and his brother hold 25% and 75% of the business respectively.  Their indenting agent business was not successful so that he only worked a few days a month.  He did not receive any salary.  Instead, his brother gave him free room and broad and pocket money of about $2,000 to $3,000 per month.  H proposed to pay $2,000 per month for the Child to W.  

18.  The joint expert report valued his 25% interest in the partnership business at $42,006.

19.  Concerning the premier accounts, H’s case was that the money was his father and brother’s.

20.  Concerning the said sum of $338,800 withdrawn by H from the parties’ joint account, H’s explanation was that it was already spent on family maintenance.

21.  Concerning the jewellery, H said he had returned it to W.

22.  He said he had no money and would be unable to pay any lump sum order.

The law

23.  Section 7(1) of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance, Cap 192 (the “Ordinance”), sets out the governing principles in relation to the exercise of its powers under section 4, 6 or 6A in relation to a party to the marriage.  The Court will have regard to the conduct of the parties and all the circumstances of the case including the following matters, that is to say-

(a) Income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources;

(b) Financial needs, obligations and responsibilities of the parties;

(c) Parties’ standard of living before marriage breakdown;

(d) Age of the parties and duration of marriage;

(e) Any physical / mental disability;

(f) Contributions made by parties to welfare of family;

(g) Value of any benefit a party will lose chance of acquiring.

24.  Section 7(2) of the Ordinance provides that it shall be the duty of the court in deciding whether to exercise its powers under section 5, 6 or 6A in relation to a child of the family to have regard to all the circumstances of the case including the following matters, that is to say-

(a) The financial needs of the child;

(b) The income, earning capacity (if any), property and other financial resources of the child;

(c) Any physical or mental disability of the child;

(d) The standard of living enjoyed by the family before the breakdown of the marriage;

(e) The manner in which he was being and in which the parties to the marriage expected him to be educated;

and so to exercise those powers as to place the child, so far as it is practicable and, having regard to the considerations mentioned in relation to the parties to the marriage in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1), just to do so, in the financial position in which the child would have been if the marriage had not broken down and each of those parties had properly discharged his or her financial obligations and responsibilities towards him.

25.  Further guidelines have been given by the Court of Final Appeal in LKW v DD (2010) 13 HKCFAR 537, namely a five-stage process: identifying the parties’ assets; assessing the parties’ needs; deciding to apply the sharing principle; whether good reasons for departure from equality existing; and deciding the overall outcome.

Issues in dispute

26.  There are a number of issues to be determined by the court, namely-

(a) What is the earning capacity of the parties?  What are the needs of the parties and the Child?  What amount should H be ordered to pay for the Child’s maintenance to W?

(d) Are there any assets? If so, how should the assets be divided?

(e) Can W get behind the joint expert’s report on the value of the partnership business?

(e) Whether the money in the premier accounts was a matrimonial asset?

(f) Whether the said sum of $338,000 in the parties’ joint account was spent on family expenses?

(g) Whether the wedding gifts given by H’s mother to W were returned to W?

My view

The earning capacity of the parties

27.  W was graduated with a Masters Degree in Business Administration in Pakistan.  She had worked as a Business Development Executive and Administration Officer for 2 years in Pakistan.  She worked as an interpreter after her arrival in Hong Kong.  She has worked full time with a NGO in Hong Kong earning $13,500 per month since August 2017. 

28.  I reject H’s suggestion that, being a registered interpreter, W has the ability to undertake some part time work, in addition to her present work.  I do not accept that it is reasonable to require of her, a full time working mother, working part time.

29.  H was graduated in Pakistan with a Bachelor Degree in Science in 2001.  He came to join his family in Hong Kong in the same year.  He worked as a clerk for 4 years in two different companies between 2001 and 2005.  He was an Information Technology Operator in a bank in Hong Kong from 2005 to 2011.  Before he was married, he had the experience of working as a security guard in Hong Kong.  He has worked for the partnership business with his brother, of which he owns 25%, since about November 2011.  He said the business was not successful and he spent little time working doing little more than showing samples to customers and some book keeping.  He was not paid by the business though his brother would help him by giving him pocket money of $2,000 to $3,000 per month. 

30.  W contended that if he did not earn money in the business, there would be no reason why he would continue with his brother.  In 2010, the parties moved to live with H’s brother.  During the period from 2010 to June 2012, H paid rent to his brother and shared household expenses.  From June 2012, after W and the Child moved out, his brother has paid his rent and all household expenses.  H said that the current market rent of the room occupied by him at his brother’s place was of over $6,000 per month.  H said he believed that he was better off with staying in the business with his brother.

31.  I accept that H is now living off the brother.  The authorities recognise that earning capacity is a resource.  H clearly has earning capacity.  I also take the view that he should make efforts to re-establish himself in the workforce.  With his education background and work experience, he could work as an office assistant, a bank clerk or security guard.  If he properly applies his skills, I firmly believe that he will earn no less than $12,000 a month.  I propose H has earning capacity of no less than $12,000 a month.

The needs of W and the Child

32.  During the hearing a schedule was helpfully produced summarizing the present position of the parties. W did not claim maintenance for her.  The claim for the Child was $5,570 per month whereas H’s position was that he would pay $2,000 per month.  W’s schedule stated as follows:

General

Item	$
Rent	3,900
Utilities	600
Food	2,500
Household Expenses	1,000
TOTAL:	8,000

Personal

Item	$
Meals out of Home	200
Transport (Octopus)	300
Clothing/Shoes	300
Personal Grooming	200
Entertainment/ Presents	0
Holidays(Weekend)with the Child	850
Medical/dental	150
Mobile phone	205
Internet	280
Donation	100
TOTAL:	2,582

Child

Item	$
Extra tuition	2,300
School books and Stationery	340
Medical/Dental	150
Extracurricular/ school activities/ competition	250
Entertainment/ Presents	100
Holidays (Weekend)	850
Clothing/Shoes	250
Lunch (hala Food)	300
Other Transport	300
Child minding	1,500
Uniform	150
Milk, biscuits and snacks	500
Mobile	50
Pocket money	100
TOTAL:	7,140
TOTAL of All Expenses:	17,722

33.  H accepted all items of W’s general and personal expenses, save the holidays expenses, for such item appeared twice, once on W’s personal expenses and one on the Child’s expenses.  About the Child’s expenses, he raised questions on the Extra tuition, School books and stationery, Entertainment/presents, Holidays (Weekend), Lunches (halal food), Child minding, Milk, biscuits and snacks and Pocket money.

The items in dispute

W’s Expenses on Holidays (Weekend)

34.  As they go holidays together, I accept that both W and the Child will incur holidays expenses.  W claimed $850 per month for herself and the same amount for the Child, stating that they used to return to Pakistan once per year, and W sometimes went out with the Child for fun and food on Saturdays and Sundays.  I accept that her claim is reasonable.

The Child’s expenses

Extra tuition fees

35.  During school days, the Child will go to the tutorial class after she finishes school at 3:30 p.m., and W picks up her from the class when she goes home from the office at about 7 p.m.  The tutorial class for the Child is necessary in so far as the Child needs an adult to look after her after school.  I accept that the amount of $2,300 per month is reasonable.

School books and stationery

36.  The claim is for $340 per month, i.e. $4,080 a year. On the face of it, I accept that it seems a little on the high side.  On a broad brush basis, I propose $3,000 a year, i.e. $250 per month.

Entertainment/presents

37.  W explained that the presents were for the Child and her friends.  I accept that the Child probably goes to children’s birthday parties and that as is customary it is expected that she buys a present and card.  I accept the modest claim of $100 per month.

Holidays (Weekend)

38.  As said in the above, the claim of $850 per month is reasonable.

Lunches (Halal food)

39.  W cooks for the Child but sometimes the Child will buy lunch at school.  I propose $150 per month.

Child minding

40.  W pays for child minding when she is required to work overtime.  W has not provided the details of the calculation of her claim.  On a broad brush basis, I propose $850 per month.

Milk, biscuits and snacks and Pocket money

41.  The Child consumes two boxes of powder milk that cost more than $300 per month.  The Child also receives pocket money to spend on biscuits and snacks and other little things that she wants.  I propose $450 per month.

42.  Accordingly, I find that W’s monthly expenses are $16,682, including general expenses of $8,000, personal expenses of $2,582 and the Child’s expenses of $6,100 per month.

H’s needs

43.  H’s monthly expenses are $7,000, including $3,000 for food, $500 for household expenses, $500 for meals out of home, $800 for transport, $500 for clothing/shoes, $200 for personal grooming, $500 for medical/dental and $1,000 for interim maintenance payment.  H does not have rent or utilities expenses.

44.  H is currently not earning a salary, but the court will look at a spouse’s ability and qualification to assess his or her earning capacity and will not confine it to current earnings.  H has earning capacity and longer term he should find work.  If he works, he will need to pay rent and utilities.  If he continues to live with his brother, I will propose $3,000 per month for rent and $500 per month for utilities and other household expenses. If he moves out, I will propose $3,500 for rent and $500 for utilities and household expenses.  The parties lived frugally during marriage.  On a broad brush basis, I propose $3,500 per month for food and meals out of home and $800 for transport.  As to his expenditure on clothing/shoes, personal grooming and medical/dental, I propose $700 per month in total.

What amount should H be ordered to pay W for the Child’s maintenance?

45.  Earning $13,500 per month, W’s take home pay is $12,825 per month.  I find that her monthly expenses including the Child’s expenses are $16,682 per month.  There is a shortfall of $3,857 per month.  I find that H can earn no less than $12,000 per month.   After MPF deduction, his take home pay will be $11,400 per month.  When he works, H’s monthly expenses will be $8,500 to $9,000 per month.  Obviously, H cannot afford to pay $3,857 per month.  Upon divorce, money previously used to support one household must now stretch to support two.  It is not unusual that the parties have to make sacrifice on their living standard as a result.  In the circumstance, I regard an order that H is to pay $2,500 per month for the Child’s maintenance to W is just and reasonable.

Identifying the parties’ assets

46.  As stated in his Form E dated 22 April 2015, H had $6,188.4 in three personal bank accounts, $11,654.36 in the saving account in the joint name of himself and his brother and $74,227 in MPF.  The updated situation was that, apart from having $80,436.35 in MPF, the only asset that H had was his 25% interest in the partnership business with his brother. 

47.  H had no liabilities. 

48.  I reject as having no foundation at all the suggestion that H might have more than 25% interest in the partnership business.  I equally cannot not accept that W can get behind the joint expert’s report on the value of the partnership business.  The joint expert report valued H’s interest in the business at $42,006. 

49.  W had $6,657.32 in cash, two MPF accounts currently valued at totally $42,846.02.  She borrowed $56,450 from friends to meet her monthly expenses.

50.  Taking the disclosure made by the parties on their assets and liabilities at face value, there was no family asset to be distributed between them.  W contended that H had hidden assets.  I propose to deal with W’s contention as follows.

Whether the monies in the premier accounts were a matrimonial asset?

51.  H held two premier accounts.  His case was that his father, who had traded shares and foreign currency for a long time, suggested in 2005 and 2006 that H opened the premier accounts in his name.  His father put more than one million into the premier accounts.  He wanted H to look after the premier accounts for him through e-banking and to follow his instructions on what to buy and sell.  His brother put about $300,000 into the premier accounts. H put in about $200,000.  They also put their salaries into the premier accounts. The premier accounts were closed in September 2012.  At that time, there was something over $1.2 million.  They had made an overall loss.  H used the money to buy about one million in gold and took the balance in cash.  He gave the gold to his father and the cash to his brother. 

52.  W believed the money in the premier accounts belonged to H.  She said she was told by H’s father that H held over one million in his premier accounts. 

53.  From an examination of H’s financial history, I accept that it appears highly unlikely that he could have amassed in the region of $1.5 million given his history of low salary income.  After having carefully considered, I accept that H’s father put about $1 million and his brother put about $300,000 into the premier accounts.  It was not suggested by W that if in fact the H’s father put about $1 million and his brother put $300,000 into the premier accounts, the said monies were gifts to H.  The presumption of advancement suggests that the property transferred from a father to a son is a gift.  I do not find, however, that H’s father and his brother’s monies in the premier accounts were gifts to H, in view of H and his brother’s evidence that – firstly, H’s father wanted H to look after the premier accounts for him through e-banking, secondly, H followed his father’s instructions on what to buy and sell, and thirdly, on top of that, the undisputed evidence that, from time to time, H used monies in the premier accounts to pay for his father (who did not live together with H)’s rents and bills pursuant to his father’s requests and to make payments on behalf of his brother pursuant to his brother’s requests. 

54.  H said he put in about $200,000 in the premier accounts in about 2005 or 2006.  He also put his salaries into the accounts.  When the premier accounts were closed in September 2012, H did not get anything.  H said it was because he was responsible for the overall loss in the premier accounts.  As he said, he traded in accordance with his father’s instructions.  I take the view that in the circumstance H should not be held to lose all of his monies in the premier accounts.  With the sketchy information provided by H, I am unable to put an accurate figure on how much should be returned to H when the premier accounts were closed.  On the balance of probabilities, I find it can be anywhere between $100,000 to $200,000.  I regard it is correct to suggest that the time of the close of the premier accounts is suspicious.  In particular, I take notice that: - firstly, as stated by H, most of the loss that he made occurred in about 2008, i.e. 3 to 4 years before the close of the premier accounts, and secondly, viewing from the monthly statements of the premier accounts for the period from February 2010 to September 2012, one can see that, broadly speaking, the premier accounts did not make loss during the said period.  In the circumstance, I cannot accept H’s explanation that he was asked by his father to close the premier accounts in September 2012 for he made losses in the premier accounts.  In view of the close proximity in time, it seems that probably the close of the premier accounts was triggered by the separation of the parties in June 2012.  Its purpose naturally was to put the money in the premier accounts beyond the reach of W.  In summary, I find that H has hidden asset of $100,000 to $200,000.  H earned about $7,000 to $8,000 per month from 2005 to about May 2011.  With family burden, he could not have savings during the parties’ marriage.  It appears that his investments in the premier accounts were savings that he had before the parties’ marriage.  W accepted that there were substantial funds in the accounts before the parties’ marriage.  In view of that the parties’ marriage is short in duration and in consideration of the discussions made in the following paragraph, I do not propose to make any order for the sharing of the said $100,000 to $200,000 between the parties.

55.  Save that he paid W’s rent and utilities for a brief period of two months during which the parties attempted reconciliation, H ceased to pay W any maintenance, after the parties were separated in June 2012, and only started to pay W $1,000 per month from April 2015 after the making of the order dated 30 March 2015.  Given that H had hidden asset of $100,000 to $200,000, I regard that I should make an order for backdating of H’s maintenance payment.  On a broad brush basis, I propose that the 1^st payment of the maintenance payment of $2,500 per month to be effective from 1 August 2012.  H shall make up the under provision for the period from August 2012 to November 2017 by a lump sum payment of $125,500, calculated as follows:

(a) $2,500 per month from August 2012 to March 2015, i.e. 2,500 per month X 31 months = $77,500. 

(b) $1,500 per month from April 2015 to November 2017, i.e. ($2,500 - $1000) per month X 32 months = $48,000.

(c) (a) + (b) = $125,500.

Whether the joint account monies were spent on family expenses?

56.  H withdrew $50,000, $80,000, $90,000, $19,500 and $47,500, totally $287,000 on 20 April 2010, 5 January 2011, 19 December 2011, 2 May 2012 and 16 July 2012 respectively from the parties’ joint account and deposited the said sums, totally $338,800, into the premier accounts.  W prayed for the return of the sum of $338,800while H was saying that it was spent on family expenses. 

57.  In regard to the question of whether the joint account money was spent on family expenses, I take into considerations of the followings-

(a) It is not seriously disputed that indenting agent business is not undertakings requiring large investments of capital.  I reject W’s suggestion that H might have put the said sum of $338,800, or any part thereof, in the business with his brother as investments. 

(b) It is beyond dispute that the said sum of $338,800 was withdrawn by H.  The question is whether he hid the money, or the money was spent on family expenses.

(c) W contended that, during the marriage, H’s monthly salary was sufficient to meet the family expenses of about $8,000 per month.  In contrast, H said the parties’ monthly expenses were between $15,000 to $20,000.  With the evidence before me, I cannot put an accurate figure on the parties’ family expenses during marriage. I can only approach the matter on a broad brush basis.  In the first year after W moved to Hong Kong, i.e. during the period from 2009 to 2010, the parties lived in a flat in Jordan with H’s family.  From mid-2010, the parties lived with H’s brother’s family.  During the whole period from 2009 to June 2012, H paid rent and utilities at the beginning to his family and later on to his brother’s family.  He paid the rent of $3,000 per month plus utilities of $2,000 per month to his brother’s family.  The parties moved to live with H’s brother’s family to save costs.  It follows that the rent and utilities were more than $5,000 per month before.  The parties lived frugally during marriage. With that, I propose that the general expenses including food and other items were $5,000 per month.  About the parties’ personal expenses, I bear in mind that they were working couples.  H said he paid W pocket money of $5,000 per month. W said H only paid her $1,000 per month.  On the face of it, H’s figure is on the high side.  In this regard, I prefer W’s figure to H’s.  I accept W’s personal expenses at $1,000 per month.  For H’s personal expenses, I propose $2,000 per month.  The parties accepted that, not having any activity during that period of time, the Child did not have her expenses.  In my calculation, the parties’ family expenses during marriage were $5,000 + $5,000 + $,1000 +$2,000 = $13,000 per month in the average.  Taking that H earned $8,000 per month at that time, there was a shortfall of $5,000 per month.  From 2009 to November 2011, the deficit was $5,000 per month X 36 months = $180,000.  From December 2012 to June 2012, H had no income.  The deficit was $13,000 per month X 7 months = $91,000.

(d) H sent money to Pakistan for charity every Islamic Holy Fasting month of Ramadan about $10,000. $10,000 per year X 3 years = $30,000. 

(e) H spent about $20,000 on W and the Child’s trip to Pakistan in 2012.

(f) The sum of the above (c), (d) and (e) is $180,000 + $91,000 + $30,000 + $20,000 = $321,000.

(g) The said sum of $321,000 is not far from the said sum of $338,800.

58.  In the circumstance, I am prepared to accept that the money in the parties joint account was spent on family expenses.

Whether H’s mother’s wedding gifts were returned to W?

59.  H denied that he did not let W take the jewellery to Pakistan.  According to him, W could take the jewellery away with her if she wanted to do so.  As may be expected, I regard that the gold jewellery, the only substantive valuable personal belongings that W had during her marriage, must be most precious to W.  It is probably that W wanted to take her jewellery with her when she left Hong Kong in June 2012.  It is likely that W had asked to take away the jewellery but H refused it.  Over and above that, H said that W used to keep her gold jewellery in a bag that was stored in a locker when the parties lived together.  After W came back to Hong Kong and lived in Sham Shui Po, he took the bag to W.  At one time, when he was asked whether he actually gave the said gold bangles, gold necklace and earrings to W, he answered that he did not in fact know what was in the bag that he gave to W.  H was to give W her gold jewellery.  I take the view that in the circumstance it was unlikely that H was never minded to check whether W’s jewellery was really in the bag before he handed it to W.  I regard that H was not truthful when he answered the said question.  In the premises, I prefer W’s case that the gold jewellery given by H’s mother was not returned to her.  At trial, H accepted that the gold jewellery given by his mother to W belongs to W.  I propose that H shall return the missing gold jewellery to W.  The parties have agreed that the value of 125g of gold was $44,112.6 as at 18 October 2017.  In the event that H fails to return the same, he shall pay the sum of $44,112.6 to W. 

60.  The parties do not seek maintenance for themselves.  This is a short marriage.  I accept that the parties, both in their thirties, have sufficient earning capacity to meet one’s own needs by one’s own efforts. 

Deciding the overall outcome

61.  In conclusion, it is ordered that –

(a)  H shall pay $2,500 per month for the Child to W, the first payment to be made on 1 August 2012 and subsequent payments on the 1^st day of each succeeding month until the Child attains the age of 18 or ceases to receive full-time education, whichever is the later;

(b)  H shall, upon making of the decree absolute, pay a lump sum of $125,500 to make up the under payment for the Child for the period from August 2012 to November 2017 to W;

(c)  H shall, upon making of the decree absolute, return the said gold bangles, gold necklace and earrings to W, failing which H shall forthwith pay a lump sum of $44,112.6 to W;

(d)  Payment to W is subject to First Legal Aid Charge;

(e)  The order for interim maintenance dated 30 March 2015 be discharged as soon as the above mentioned periodical payments are made.

62.  There be section 18 declaration.

Costs

63.  The parties’ open offers are nowhere near the relief awarded by this court.  For that, it is ordered nisi that there be no order as to costs of the ancillary relief proceedings.  The order nisi becomes absolute 14 days after the order is made unless a party has applied to the court for varying the order. 

64.  The parties’ own costs be taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Taxation Regulations.