|
CACV 139/2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 139 OF 2006
(ON APPEAL FROM fcmc nO. 12816 OF 2004)
_______________________
BETWEEN
| |
TCW |
Respondent (Appellant) |
| |
and |
|
| |
LC |
Petitioner (Respondent) |
______________________
Before: Hon Cheung JA, Yeung JA and Sakhrani J in Court
Date of Hearing: 21 March 2007
Date of Judgment: 21 March 2007
___________________
J U D G M E N T
___________________
Hon Yeung JA (giving the judgment of the court):
1. On 1 December 2006, this Court handed down a judgment allowing the husband’s appeal and dismissing the wife’s cross appeal. The court made an order nisi that there be no order as to costs.
2. The husband now seeks to vary the order nisi on costs.
3. Mrs Liza Remedios, on behalf of the husband argues that even in family cases, costs should prima facie follow the event, except perhaps in children cases. Mrs Remedios relies on Gojkovic v Gojkovic (No. 2) [1992] 1 All ER 267.
4. She submits that the wife’s request for the maintenance of the children was unreasonable and unsupported.
5. Mrs Remedios further points out that shortly after the start of the appeal hearing, the parties had a discussion to see if the wife was willing to accept shares in lieu of cash to satisfy in whole or in part the balance of the award and whether she would agree to allow the husband to obtain refinancing on the property/properties. However, the wife rejected the suggestion.
6. Mrs Remedios emphasizes that the order made by this court has the effect of allowing the husband to pay part of the lump sum by shares and that the husband was further allowed to obtain re-financing on the properties, very much in line with his offers to the wife at the discussion. She says the situation was comparable to a situation where a Calderbank offer was accepted.
7. As Mr Egerton for the wife quite rightly points out, the husband had sought to reduce the award from $22 million to just over $15 million and only conceded at the hearing that the wife should be entitled to about $21 million.
8. The husband even objected to the wife and the children having a new car.
9. Despite the husband’s earlier open proposal of only cash payment of $1.5 million, he indicated in the course of the hearing that he was prepared to pay $6 million over a period of five years.
10. It may not be necessary to re-visit all the issues raised at the earlier hearing, but some of the other grounds advanced by the husband in the appeal were rejected.
11. The question of costs is always a discretionary matter, particularly in family cases.
12. We are satisfied that the costs order nisi is all the circumstances, fair and reasonable.
13. We therefore confirm the costs order nisi. We also order that costs of today to be part of the appeal costs, i.e. there will be no order as to costs.
(Peter Cheung)
Justice of Appeal |
(Wally Yeung)
Justice of Appeal |
(Arjan Sakhrani)
Judge of the Court of First Instance |
Ms Lisa Remedios instructed by Messrs Tsang, Chan & Wong for the Respondent(Appellant)
Mr Robin Egerton instructed by Messrs Simon C W Yung & Co for the Petitioner (Respondent)
|