ZFY v. SCHC

CAMP 87/2022

[2022] HKCA 1036

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 87 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM FCMP NO. 97 OF 2020)

________________________

________________________

________________________

________________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision on Costs of the Court) :

1.  The Father seeks to vary the costs order made by this Court on 2 June 2022. He asks for no order as to costs of his application.

2.  Costs are in the discretion of the Court. The application before us was a renewed application for leave to appeal. The Judge below had already refused to grant leave. Before us, the Father had likewise failed to satisfy the threshold of showing that his appeal has a reasonable prospect of success. The hearing before us had not even reached the stage of a proper appeal which may engage the ‘costs practice’ discussed in TPL v WYY formerly known as WYY (CACV 47/2014). In any event, that case expressly recognized that the ‘costs practice’ is not a rigid rule. As the proposed challenge was unmeritous, costs should follow the event. We also recognized the financial disparity between the parties. A no costs order will operate harshly against the Mother : see Keller v Keller and Legal Aid Board [1995] 1 FLR 259.

3.  Accordingly, the application is refused with costs to the Mother.

4.  We will summarily assess the costs at $518,000 which include $418,000 as fee for two counsel.