FSM v. BDS AND OTHERS

FCMC 12749 / 2016

[2019] HKFC 258

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES

NUMBER 12749 OF 2016

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T
(Preliminary Issues and Section 17 Application)

________________________

Introduction

1.  This is the petitioner’s (“the wife’s) application for  determination of the beneficial ownership of a property disposed by the 1^st respondent (“the husband”) after filing of the petition. The wife also applies for an order that such transaction be set aside pursuant to section 17 of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance, Cap 192 (“the MPPO”).

Background

2.  The wife and the husband were lawfully married in Hong Kong on 10 December 2006. The wife and the husband were 40 and 46 respectively at time of trial. They gave birth to a pair of twins in 2009.

3.  The wife has been a full time house wife since 2008 and was financially dependent on the husband.  During the marriage, the husband worked in the financial industry. In or about 2012, the husband decided to set up various businesses. He has been an entrepreneur and a director of at least 5 private companies. The husband was also an advertisement part-time model. 

4.  In or about August 2010, the wife discovered the husband has had an extra-marital affair with a female (“Madam Yang”) in the mainland.  The affair with Madam Yang continued and resulted in an illegitimate daughter born on 20 November 2014. While appeasing the wife, the husband promised her to stay in the marriage and provided her with financial security by adding the wife as an account holder of his bank account.

5.  In or about October 2015, the wife discovered the husband has continued his extra-marital affair with Madam Yang, their relationship further broke down. The husband left their matrimonial home shortly after February 2016, they separated. 

6.  On 4 October 2016, the wife petitioned for a divorce on  ground of behavior.  On 14 December 2016, a decree nisi was granted. On 12 January 2018, by consent, both the husband and wife were granted joint custody of the two children; sole care and control to the wife and defined access to the husband.

7.  On 7 February 2017, the wife applied for maintenance pending suit against the husband. The trial of the wife’s application was heard by Deputy District Judge R. So. The learned judge made an order in her judgment delivered on 3 January 2018 that the husband shall pay maintenance pending suit and interim maintenance to both the wife and two children in sum of HK$150,000 on a monthly basis (“interim maintenance order”).  

8.  The husband failed to comply with the interim maintenance order, the wife took out a judgment summons on 1 December 2017.

The wife’s application

9.  The wife’s present application came about because the husband did not disclose the property in issue, a flat of a multistoried building in Hong Kong (“the KT Mansion”) in his Form E. This property was purchased by the husband and the husband’s stepfather (“the stepfather, the 3^rd respondent”) in 2001. They were joint tenants.  

10.  The stepfather paid up the purchase price of KT Mansion in sum of HK$3,800,000. It has no mortgage.  On 10 December 2013, both the husband and the stepfather sold KT Mansion at a price of HK$14,800,000. The husband’s mother (“the mother, the 2^nd respondent”) signed the sale and purchase agreement for and on behalf of the husband and the step-father on the strength of a power of attorney.  The mother continued to handle the sale of KT Mansion, it was completed on 20 January 2014.  The mother received proceeds of sale in sum of HK$13.3 million.

11.  On the day of signing the sale and purchase agreement of KT Mansion, the mother and step-father signed another sale and purchase agreement to purchase another property in Hong Kong (“the Tai Po Property”).  An initial deposit of HK$1.6 million was paid to the vendor of the Tai Po Property.  On 11 February 2014, to complete the purchase of Tai Po Property, the mother and stepfather jointly signed the assignment and had paid the balance of purchase price of HK$14.4 million to the vendor. It is not in dispute the mother had applied the proceeds from the sale of KT Mansion to the said purchase.  

12.  Both the mother and his step-father had subsequently purchased in the joint names two other landed properties in Central and Stanley, Hong Kong.

13.  On 28 March 2017, the wife took out a summons for an order of joinder of the husband’s mother and the stepfather as the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents. Such application was granted on 10 May 2017.  

14.  The wife sought an order to set aside a disposition of a KT Mansion pursuant to section 17 of the MPPO together with determination on the issue of its beneficial ownership, the sale proceeds and subsequent purchase of another property with that proceeds.

The husband’s case

15.  The husband explained KT Mansion does not belong to him, it was purchased by the mother and the step-father. The husband did not contribute to the purchase price, he merely held the property on trust for his mother with no beneficial interest. He emphasized the stepfather paid for the price of KT Mansion.   

16.  The husband did not live in KT Mansion, neither did the wife nor the children. The mother and step-father decorated the flat with their own ideas, they purchased furniture to fit the premise.  Both of them had lived there as their matrimonial home until they move to Tai Po Property in 2014.

17.  The husband further explained, the mother was a United States citizen, she intended to avoid potential tax consequence in US, she then requested the husband to be named as the registered owner of the KT Mansion.  The stepfather thought he could purchase KT Mansion with his own name, the husband could assist the purchase by executing a power of attorney to the husband. As a result of the discussion, three of them decided to purchase KT Mansion by the step-father and the husband as joint tenants. The stepfather then executed a power of attorney in favor of the husband and he handled all the documentations of the purchase.

The issues

18.  The wife’s application consisted of two claims which are based on the same set of facts. It is the wife’s case that KT Mansion was meant to be a gift by the mother to the husband. The wife accepted this is not a case of express gift, she relied on inferences to be drawn at time of the purchase.

19.  The husband’s defence is premised on “common intention constructive trust” where the husband has held KT Mansion for both the mother and the stepfather. The husband pleaded, in the alternative, “presumption of resulting trust” where he has held KT Mansion on trust for the stepfather.

20.  The first issue is to determine whether the husband has beneficial ownership in KT Mansion. I have to come up with a finding on the common intention of the husband, the mother and the step father when KT Mansion was purchased. The wife’s application will come to an end if the common intention of purchasing KT Mansion was the husband to hold his share on trust for the mother.

21.  The 2^nd limb of the wife’s application came into the scene when I have found the above issue in favour of her.  Pursuant to section 17 of the MPPO, I shall then determine whether the sale of KT Property should be set aside.  Whether the disposition of the sale proceeds of the KT Property, i.e. by transferring to the mother or the stepfather shall be accounted for the as part of the matrimonial asset.

22.  Or in the alternative, as the proceeds of the sale of KT Mansion has been deployed towards the purchase of Tai Po Property by the mother and the step-father, I shall decide whether the husband shall have beneficial interest in the Tai Po Property or any part of it.

23.  Both the wife, husband, the husband’s mother and step-father testified.

Applicable legal principles

Beneficial ownership

24.  The law on beneficial ownership is well settled. Hon Lam J (as he then was) gave a thorough account in his judgment Chan Chui Mee v. Wong Sau Kin & ors, HCMP 1904 of 2005, 19 September 2008.

16. In the recent case of Stack v Dowden [2007] 2 AC 432, the House of Lords re-examined the law in this area.  That was a case on beneficial ownership when the property was held under joint names.  It was held that since Lloyds Bank v Rosset [1991] 1 AC 107, the law has moved on.  The key is to identify the common intention of the parties.  Baroness Hale said at para. 60,

“The search is to ascertain the parties’ shared intentions, actual, inferred or imputed, with respect to the property in the light of their whole course of conduct in relation to it.”

17. It was also held that in the search for common intention, a holistic approach should be adopted in the quantification of the beneficial interest by undertaking a survey of the whole course of dealing between the parties and taking account of all conduct which throws light on the question what shares were intended.  

18. At para. 69 of the judgment in Stack, Baroness Hale identified many factors in addition to financial contributions that the court should take into account in a domestic context to divine the parties’ true intentions.  Her Ladyship further said at paragraph 70 that the list is not exhaustive.”

……

“24. The first stage is to examine whether there is a common intention that the claimant should have a beneficial interest in the property. The dicta of Lord Bridge in Lloyds Bank v Rosset [1991] 1 AC 107 at p.132-3 was held to be pertinent to this stage of the enquiry but not to the second stage (see para. 48 of Oxley). At para. 68 of Oxley, Chadwick LJ said,

“…the first question is whether there is evidence from which to infer a common intention, communicated by each to the other, that each shall have a beneficial share in the property.  In many cases … there will have been some discussion between the parties at the time of the purchase which provides the answer to that question.  … In other cases --- where the evidence is that the matter was not discussed at all --- an affirmative answer will readily be inferred from the fact that each has made a financial contribution.  … And, if the answer to the first question is that there was a common intention, communicated to each other, that each should have a beneficial share in the property, then the party to who does not become the legal owner will be held to have acted to his or her detriment in making a financial contribution to the purchase in reliance on the common intention.”

25. Once the common intention as to beneficial ownership is established, the second stage is to ascertain the extent of the parties’ respective interests in the property. At para. 69 of Oxley, Chadwick LJ set out the approach to be adopted in answering this question.

“… in many such cases, the answer will be provided by evidence of what they said and did at the time of the acquisition.  But, in a case where there is no evidence of any discussion between them as to the amount of the share which each was to have … the question still requires an answer.  It must now be accepted that … the answer is that each is entitled to that share which the court considers fair having regard to the whole course of dealing between them in relation to the property.  And, in that context, ‘the whole course of dealing between them in relation to the property’ includes the arrangements which they make from time to time in order to meet the outgoings … which have to be met if they are to live in the property as their home.”

26. After examining three strands of reasoning identified from earlier cases, His Lordship found it artificial to attribute to the parties a common intention to fix the extent of beneficial interest as from the time of acquisition when all evidence points to the conclusion that they had given no thought to the matter. He continued to say at para. 71,

“… in the absence of evidence that they gave any thought to the amount of their respective shares, the necessary inference is that they must have intended that question would be answered later on the basis of what was then seen to be fair.”

27. In Stack v Dowden [2007] 2 AC 432, the House of Lords endorsed the two stage approach, see paras. 61 and 63. This is further highlighted by Baroness Hale in Abbott v Abbott [2007] UKPC 53 at para. 4.

28. Baroness Hale stressed that the burden is on the party who alleges that the beneficial interest is not vested in the same manner as the legal interest in a property to establish the same, see paras. 54, 56 and 68.

29. As far as the second stage is concerned, Baroness Hale preferred the expression of the test of quantification in the Law Commission Discussion Paper on Sharing Homes to the formulation of Chadwick LJ. The preferred test is as follows,

“If the question really is one of the parties’ ‘common intention’, we believe that there is much to be said for adopting what has been called a ‘holistic approach’ to quantification, undertaking a survey of the whole course of dealing between the parties and taking account of all conduct which throws light on the question what shares were intended.”

See also Abbott v Abbott [2007] UKPC 53 at para. 6.

30. It is important to have regard to what Her Ladyship went on to say at para. 61 to account for such preference,

“First, it emphasizes that the search is still for the result which reflects what the parties must, in the light of their conduct, be taken to have intended. Second, therefore, it does not enable the court to abandon that search in favour of the result which the court itself considers fair. For the court to impose its own view of what is fair upon the situation in which the parties find themselves would be to return to the days before Pettitt v Pettitt [1970] AC 777 without even the fig leaf of section 17 of the 1882 Act.”

25.  On the same issue, I also seek assistance from a recent case by HH Judge Sharon D. Melloy in WSS v. DKPA, FCMC 9725 of 2012, 15 July 2014,

“15. Thus it seems to me that in the first instance the court is asked to ascertain whether or not there is an express statement of beneficial interest with respect to this property. In the event that there is not, as seems to be the case here, then the court is required to determine whether or not there was a tacit understanding with respect to that ownership. In doing so I am asked to view the whole history of the ownership of the property holistically and over time. In particular I am asked to examine the parties conduct with respect to the property. I also accept that it is important to guard against the benefit of hind sight when going through this exercise.

16. In the event that it is not possible to ascertain a “tacit understanding” then the court then look to presumptions to assist in reaching a decision. Even then a presumption – is just that – a presumption that can be displaced depending on the available facts. Thus I do not necessarily accept that this is simply a “resulting trust” case as was boldly suggested by the wife’s counsel in his closing. Rather it seems to me that this is a case to determine a preliminary issue about ownership where there are a number of potential trust issues.

17.       In looking at this final stage I accept that I may pose the question – what is reasonable and fair in the circumstances as they have developed, seeing that they are circumstances which no one contemplated before? In considering this question it seems to me that the only factor which is new is the proposed divorce. This was certainly not contemplated previously. Thus the issue of hindsight also comes into play and should likewise be guarded against. Lastly – even if a presumption can be made it can of course also be rebutted in the light of the actual factual evidence before the court.”       

Section 17 application

26.  The relevant Section 17(1)(b) of the MPPO provides that :

“Where proceedings for relief under any of the relevant provision of this Ordinance are brought by a person against any other person, the court may, on an application by the applicant – …

(b) if it is satisfied that the other party has, with the intention [of defeating the claim for financial provisions] made a disposition to which this paragraph applies and that if the disposition were set aside financial provision or different financial provision would be granted to the applicant, make an order setting aside the disposition and give such consequential directions as it thinks fit for giving effect to the order …”.

27.  In Kemmis v Kemmis (Welland and Others, Interveners) [1988] 1 WLR 1307, “intention” is well depicted in the following judgment.

“1326 …What is the meaning of “intention” in section 37(2) of the Act of 1973? Upon this question we had little if any assistance from counsel, although I understood Mr. Trace to concede that a disposition might be reviewable even though not made with the sole intention of defeating the wife's claim for financial relief. But how far does that concession go? Does the husband's intention to defeat the wife's claim have to be the dominant intention? Or is it sufficient that it was part of his intention? Is “intention” divisible at all? A man may act from mixed motives. But can he have mixed intentions? I do not find these questions easy. As in other branches of the law, the more one seeks to analyse the meaning of the word “intention” the harder it becomes.

In the present context three things are, I think, plain. First, we are concerned with the husband's intention in a subjective sense. It is his state of mind which we have to investigate, not the consequence of his acts. This much at least is clear from section 37(5) of the Act, whereby the relevant intention is presumed if the disposition has the relevant consequence, but only if the disposition is less than three years before the date of the application, and then only unless the contrary is shown. Secondly, as in every case where we are called on to investigate a person's intentions, the court is necessarily thrown back on inference. It will be a rare case where the spouse declares his state of mind in advance, and even then his declaration would not be conclusive, or even very persuasive, unless it is against interest. Thirdly, in determining whether a spouse has the requisite state of mind, a court may have regard to the natural consequences of his act. It is true that there is no presumption, unless section 37(5) applies. Nor, generally, would the natural consequence of the disposition be enough by itself to support an inference of intention. But the natural consequence of the disposition would certainly be a factor to be taken into account in deciding whether or not to draw the inference of intention in any given case.”

“1330….I agree with Purchas and Lloyd LJJ that what the judge had to find was a subjective intention on the part of the husband. Moreover, I think it clear that it did not have to be his sole or even his dominant intention. It was enough if it played a substantial part in his intentions as a whole. If it were otherwise, section 37(2) would fail to catch the case where a husband makes a disposition with the dominant intention of gratifying his mistress and only the subsidiary intention of defeating his wife's claim for financial relief. I feel sure that that was not the intention of Parliament…”

Analysis

The purchase of the property

28.  The burden rests with the husband to prove common intention.

29.  The wife testified, since they were dating in 2003 – 2004, the husband mentioned to the wife that he was one of the owner of KT Mansion. The wife heard from the husband a number of times that the KT Mansion was his.  She recalled, the husband said the entire KT Mansion will be his eventually because he was the only son of the family. At all times, she did not request the husband to name her as one of the owner of KT Mansion.

30.  From the time of purchase KT Mansion until it was sold in late 2013, the husband made known to the wife KT Mansion was used primarily as a family resort for the mother and the step-father when they were in town; or for other family members or friends to stay whenever they visited Hong Kong.  Both the wife and the husband have their own place to live, the idea to move in KT Mansion has never come across their mind.

Both the wife and the husband paid visits to the mother in KT Mansion when she was in town.

31.  The wife perceived gifting of properties is not an unusual event within the husband’s family. The husband’s family is a well off. The husband was gifted a commercial property by his grandfather. In earlier days, both the wife and the husband co-habited in an apartment provided by the grandmother. The husband’s grandmother funded the husband HK$1,000,000 for the husband to paid the for the purchase price of their first matrimonial home.  Because of this, the wife believed KT Mansion was gifted to the husband by the mother.

32.  I accept the wife’s evidence on what has been said between the husband and herself.  The husband as one of the registered owner of KT Mansion, it is not surprising the wife had formed a belief KT Mansion was the husband’s property. Nevertheless, the husband has only mentioned the fact that he was one of the registered owner of KT Mansion, he was quite right to say KT Mansion will be his eventually because he was the only son.

33.  I then consider the evidence of the subjective mind of the husband, the mother and the stepfather, they bear the burden to prove intention.

34.  Both the husband and wife were still in their courtship in 2001 when KT Mansion was purchased. The reason to purchase KT Mansion was purely an idea from the husband’s family. The wife has no participation nor did she give any comments about the purchase.  I accept KT Mansion was meant to be used by the mother and the stepfather when they are in town. It was also planned for a place to accommodate relatives and friends of both the mother and the stepfather’s extended families when they came to Hong Kong.

35.  The next issue is the reason why KT Mansion was purchased in this way - the husband and the stepfather as joint tenants. The evidence revealed the husband, the mother and the stepfather trusted each other. It might be the intention of the mother and the stepfather to have named as the registered owner of KT Mansion, save and except the mother, being a US citizen, has some concern of her tax consequence in the US if she had purchased property in her own name. She explained she was not in town at time of purchase. I find her request reasonable and logical to seek help from the husband, her only son, to assist her to be named as a registered owner of KT Mansion.

36.  The husband deposed in his affirmation that the mother requested him to hold half share of the property. The husband explained at time of acquisition of KT Mansion, he had only modest income and would not be able to purchase the property. His intention at time of acquisition of the property would be holding half share on trust for and on behalf of the mother. It was never the intention of the mother to allocate the share of KT Mansion by way of gift to him.

37.  I aware at the material time, the husband was in his twenties, a graduate from college. I accept the husband would be out of means to purchase KT Mansion or any property without the aid of others. During the course of giving evidence, I see the mother has been a cautious person. Her plans and thoughts were always clear; her actions were swift. She frankly answered during cross examination, the husband is her only son, she had trusted the husband to hold her share and to be named as one of the registered owner of KT Mansion. Coupled with the fact that the mother, having tax consequences in mind and also she was not yet in town, it would more probably than not that she has intended to ask the husband to hold the KT Mansion for and on her behalf at time of purchase.  

38.  The stepfather was married to the mother in 1993. He had children with his ex-wife but not with the mother. The stepfather was working in a Switzerland company, he was a frequent traveller. In or about 2000, the mother’s father was very ill, the mother wished to relocate in town to take care of him. The stepfather and the mother therefore decided to settle down in Hong Kong. The stepfather resigned from his job and had set up his own company in Hong Kong afterwards. Both the mother and the stepfather looked for a home in Hong Kong and they had purchased KT Mansion. The stepfather explained, at time of purchase, the mother was staying in Sweden and it would be troublesome for her to travel to Hong Kong to complete the purchase. They came up with an idea that “to put the husband’s name as joint tenant”. The stepfather then executed a power of attorney in favour of the husband. The husband agreed to handle all documentation of the purchase.

39.  The stepfather further said, he and the mother made decisions  on renovations and decorations. They chose furniture themselves. Both the stepfather and the mother stayed in KT Mansion whenever they were in Hong Kong. It was only in 2014, the stepfather and the mother sold KT Mansion and then moved to Tai Po Property.

40.  I give weight to the evidence that the stepfather up-fronted the entire payment of HK$3,800,000 to complete the purchase. The particulars were as follows:

(i)    the stepfather transferred an initial deposit of HK$114,000 from his bank account in Hong Kong to the purchaser at time of signing the provisional sale and purchase agreement on 28 August 2001;

(ii)    the stepfather further transferred HK$266,000 to the purchaser at time of signing the formal sale and purchase agreement on 10 September 2001;

(iii)    the stepfather paid stamp duty in sum of HK$85,710 from his bank account on 10 September 2001;

(iv)    the stepfather transferred HK$3,500,000 from his bank account to the mother for the payment of balance of purchase price, legal fees, commission fees and other expenses on 12 September 2001;

(v)    the mother arranged to issue a cashier order in sum of HK$3,420,000 for the above payments on 13 September 2001;

(vi)   the purchase of the KT Mansion was completed on 28 September 2001; and

(vii)   the mother paid HK$38,000 agency commission on 3 October 2001.

41.  The stepfather further clarified in his evidence that KT Mansion might have some illegal structures and both the mother and himself had decided to ask the husband to be one of the registered owner. He recalled, the mother’s citizenship never came across his mind when determining this issue.

42.  The stepfather responded right away that he had not pay much attention whether to hold KT Mansion as joint tenants or tenants in common with the husband. The stepfather simply said he did not have thought about it. I see from this evidence that the stepfather trusted the husband.

43.  I agree with the stepfather it was not the common intention to gift the husband KT Mansion at time of acquisition. I note the purchase was paid in full by the stepfather. The husband has no means to purchase a property as such when he was just a college graduate earning a monthly salary of HK$28,000. Both the wife and the husband did not live in KT Mansion. I regard the act to name the husband as a registered owner, to hold the mother’s share was a joint decision of all three of them. The husband had not taken the mother’s share as his.  The stepfather explained he has 3 children from his ex-marriage, it would definitely not his intention to gift the husband the mother’s share of KT Mansion. It was only out of practicality that the stepfather, the mother had decided to acquire KT Mansion in this manner. The stepfather made it clear that he would not share the proceeds with the husband even when KT Mansion was to be sold.

44.  I accept both the evidence of the stepfather, the mother and the husband. I consider it was the reason, out of practicality that the husband was named as a joint tenant of the property. It is more probably than not that the family decision was meant to be the husband, holding his share of KT Mansion for and on behalf of the mother. It was a simple family consensus without taking into account whether both the stepfather and the husband to be named as joint tenant or tenants in common.

45.  I find the shared, actual, inferred or imputed intention between the husband, the mother and the stepfather in this family context was the husband to hold KT Mansion as joint tenant for and on behalf of the mother. The tactical understanding to render KT Mansion as a gift to the husband had never come across the mind of the mother and the stepfather. Upon this understanding, the mother has acted to her detriment that the stepfather has made a financial contribution to purchase in reliance to the purchase. The husband was also well aware of intention that his share of KT Mansion was not his. To conclude, the husband has no beneficial interest in KT Mansion.

46.  The wife’s application shall end.

Resulting trust

47.  Be it an issue in the defence, I see no importance here upon the determination of common intention above.

Section 17 application

48.  For completeness sake, I shall deal with the wife’s section 17 application.

49.  In or about September 2015, the wife learned the ex-marital affair of the husband and Madam Yang by reading the husband’s whatsapp messages.  The husband continued to stay with Madam Yang after the wife found out about her. In March 2016, the wife relayed the husband’s ex-marital affair to the mother, the mother replied the wife that the husband had already told her about the affair with an illegitimate daughter born as early as January 2015.

50.  The wife alleged the mother had decided to sell KT Mansion around one year after she had knowledge of the husband’s ex-marital affair. The wife articulated timing of the sale of KT Mansion is of particular relevance. The wife said KT Mansion was sold in December 2013; Madam Yang was pregnant in early 2014; she gave birth to the husband’s illegitimate daughter in November 2014.

51.  The wife believed the husband had been stalling since she found out about his extramarital affair with Madam Yang. She perceived the husband could take the time to dispose assets. She believed the husband had withdrawn money from his bank account before adding her name as an account holder. The husband left his well-paid job with over HK$80,000 per month and chose to go on allegedly unsuccessful business ventures. The husband lastly disposed KT Mansion, the landed property in his name. 

52.  The wife drew an inference that the act of husband (the mother or the stepfather) to sell KT Mansion was aiming to defeat her ancillary claim in this matrimonial suit.

53.  The mother and the step father denied that they had knowledge of Madam Yang at time of sale of KT Mansion. The mother and the stepfather had only learnt the husband’s ex-marital affair in November 2015 which was more than one year after the sale of KT Mansion.  I share the view of both the mother and the stepfather it is too far fetch to draw an inference that the sale of KT Mansion by the end of 2013 was intended to defeat the wife’s claim of ancillary relief against the husband when Madam Yang was pregnant only in early 2014.

54.  Whilst investigating the intention of subjective mind of the husband is always difficult, in this family context, KT Mansion was treated as the matrimonial home of the mother and the stepfather. The mother has legitimate reason to sell it. At time of sale, the mother has settled in Hong Kong and was able to handle the sale herself. I accept the mother’s explanation to have moved to Tai Po Property and to spend more time to take care of her father who was very ill at that time.

55.  I recall in the mother’s evidence, she stated her strong view towards the marriage of the wife and husband. She said firmly the husband was an adult and he should have solved his own problem. The mother did not involve in the family relationship actively between the wife and the husband.

56.  I refer to my finding that the husband has no beneficial interest that KT Mansion, there would be no disposition of matrimonial asset on the part of the husband accordingly. The wife’s application under this head failed.

The Orders

57.  With reasons of the foregoing, I make the following orders:

(i)    The wife’s (the petitioner’s) summons filed on 28 March 2017 be dismissed.

(ii)    The wife (the petitioner) do pay the costs of the wife’s (the petitioner’s) summons filed on 28 March 2017 to the husband (the respondent), with certificate for counsel, to be taxed if not agreed.

(iii)   The wife’s (the petitioner’s) own costs be taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulations.

(iv)   The 1^st appointment be fixed on 29 November 2019 at 10:30 am in Court 11 with 15 minutes reserved.

(v)   Both the wife (the petitioner) and the husband (the respondent) do appear personally.