DB v. DMA

FCMC 1006/2021

[2022] HKFC 34

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES

No. 1006 OF 2021

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

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

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

J U D G M E N T

(Maintenance pending suit/Interim maintenance)

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

A. The Application

1.  By Summons dated 12 November 2021 the Petitioner/Wife (W) applies for maintenance pending suit for herself, and for interim maintenance for the four children of the marriage: twin boys Ad and Ar, who are 14 years old, and two daughters H, aged 10 and M, who is 4 (“the Children”).  By paragraph 1 of the Summons she seeks the following Order:

“The Respondent do pay the Petitioner maintenance pending suit in the sum of HK$18,400 per month, of which HK$2,870 is for the Petitioner and HK$15,530 is for the [Children] in equal shares…”

2.  By Order dated 18 November 2021 Her Honour Judge Melloy fixed the hearing of the Summons, and gave the usual directions for the filing by H of his responding affirmation and by W of her affirmation in reply.  Leave was granted for W to adduce an Amended Questionnaire and for H to supply his Answers thereto.  These directions were given upon H’s undertaking (Annex A to the sealed Order) to continue to pay HK$27,800 for the family expenses, comprising:

	Description	Monthly payment (HK$)
1.	House rent	17,000.00
2.	Food	4,000.00
3.	School fees and transportation	2,500.00
4.	Hospital visit fees	800.00
5.	Household bills (gas, electricity, water, telephone/internet)	3,400.00
	Total:	27,800.00

B. Background

3.  W is 35, H is 46.  They are both from Guinea, in West Africa.  They were married in Africa in 2005. Although separated, the parties still live together with their Children in the matrimonial home – an apartment in Kowloon.  The apartment is leased by H’s money exchange company, G D Limited (“GDL”). 

4.  W was educated to secondary level and was a student at the time of her marriage.  She has never worked and has devoted herself to raising the Children and taking care of the household.  The parties had the benefit of a domestic helper from 2012 (shortly before their third child was born) but in 2019 the helper’s contract was not renewed.  H says this was because he was no longer able to afford the expense, and additionally because, after he and W began to sleep in separate rooms, there was insufficient space in the flat for the helper in addition to the parties and the Children. 

5.  H received tertiary level education in Africa and completed his university studies in 1998.  He pursued further studies in Belgium and then the UK, and then worked as an accountant for a year and then an administrator in a UK university for a further 2 years.  Shortly after his marriage to W in 2005, H returned to the UK. Later that year H started a business in China and W joined him there in 2006.  She gave birth to the twin boys the following year. 

6.  In late 2009/early 2010, H relocated to Hong Kong and W, who had spent some time in the UK with the twin boys for visa-related purposes, rejoined him in mid-2010.  They have lived continuously in Hong Kong since then.

7.  All four of the Children have some medical issues.  Both of the twins were diagnosed to have sickle cell anaemia at birth requiring treatment in China.  Both girls were also diagnosed with sickle cell anaemia at birth requiring medical treatment. Ad, one of the twins, still has regular blood transfusions. 

8.  Ad, and the younger of the two daughters, M, have each been diagnosed as autistic: Ad in 2011, and M in 2020.  In 2013, when he was 5 years old, Ad was assessed by a medical officer of “functioning with low moderate intellectual disability” and four years later he was assessed again by an educational psychologist, who concluded that he had “severe grade intellectual disability”.  He is attending Form 2 at a school in Tsing Yi which caters to his particular needs and allows him to board there from Monday to Friday.  He returns home on weekends. 

9.  M also has special challenges.  When she was around 3 years old, M was assessed to have significant global development delay, severe language impairment and autism spectrum disorder. 

10.  The Petition was filed February 2021 on grounds of unreasonable behaviour including an allegation of “financial abuse” and failure to take care of the Children.  In his Form 4, H signaled his intention to defend the case, but also stated that he consented to the divorce.  The Decree Nisi was pronounced on 28 January 2022.

11.  The appropriate orders in relation to the Children remain in dispute.  As directed by the Court, the parties have exchanged Forms J and a Social Investigation Report is to hand.  A CDR has been fixed for 25 July 2022. 

C. The Law

12.  Section 3 of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance (Cap 192) (“MPPO”) provides that the Court upon a petition for divorce may order “either party to the marriage to make to the other such periodical payments for his or her maintenance and for such term, being a term beginning not earlier than the date of the presentation of the petition … as the court thinks reasonable.” 

13.  Section 5(2)(a) of the MPPO states that the Court may make an order that “a party to the marriage shall make to such person as may be specified in the order for the benefit of a child of the family, or to such a child, such periodical payments and for such term as may be so specified.” Such orders may be made in divorce proceedings “before or on granting the decree of divorce, of nullity of marriage or of judicial separation, as the case may be, or at any time thereafter”: s 5(1).

14.  The approach to be taken by the Court upon applications for maintenance pending suit and interim maintenance was confirmed by the Court of Appeal in HJFG v KCY  [2012] 1 HKLRD 95:

“37. The principles that have emerged over time to guide judges in matters of interim maintenance have been fashioned in the main to ensure fairness. This is well illustrated in the judgment of Nicholas Mostyn QC, sitting then as a Deputy Judge, in TL v ML [2006] 1 FLR 1263, 1289, in which, having looked at earlier authorities, he derived the following principles that speak specifically to fairness or are based on the need to ensure it. For present purposes, it is sufficient to cite the relevant principles without citing the Judge’s reference to the source of those principles:

(a) The sole criteria to be applied in determining the application is “reasonableness” which is synonymous with “fairness”

(b) A very important factor in determining fairness is the marital standard of living. That is not to say that the exercise is merely to replicate that standard.

(c) In every maintenance pending suit application there should be a specific maintenance pending suit budget which excludes capital or long-term expenditure, more aptly to be considered on a final hearing. That budget should be examined critically in every case to exclude forensic exaggeration.

(d) Where the affidavit or Form E disclosure by the payer is obviously deficient, the court should not hesitate to make robust assumptions about his ability to pay. The court is not confined to the mere say-so of the payer as to the extent of his income or resources. In such a situation, the court should err in favour of the payee.

38. Finally, it is to be noted that in applications for interim maintenance, when the amount to be paid is for a limited period only and not all of the evidence is necessarily before the court, it is not appropriate, nor indeed in most cases possible, for the court to conduct a detailed investigation into the finances of the parties. While, in order to determine what is or is not reasonable, some analysis is always required, that analysis can be conducted on a “broad-brush” basis.”

15.  In all matrimonial cases involving claims for ancillary/financial relief, including for interim orders, both parties are under a duty to ensure that the Court is provided with sufficient information as to their financial resources.  This is a continuing duty and is not confined to completing information in and attached to the Form E and Answers to Questionnaires: GW v RW (Financial Provision: Departure from Equality) [2003] 2 FLR 108 at §17 (Mostyn J).    

D. The MPS/IM claim/budget

16.  In her first Affirmation W supplied a breakdown of her claim for $18,400 per month:

(a)  General Expenses

Item	Total (HK$)	Paid By (HK$)
		Husband	Wife
Food	5,000	3,500	1,500
Utilities	3,350	3,350	Nil
Total monthly household expenses	8,350	6,850	1,500

(b)  Personal Expenses

Item	Total (HK$)	Paid By (HK$)
		Husband	Wife
Meals out of home	200	Nil	200
Transport	200		200
Clothing/shoes	800		800
Total monthly personal expenses	1,200		1,200

(c)  Children

Item	Total (HK$)	Paid By (HK$)
		Husband	Wife
School fees (for Ad and M)	3,250	3,250	Nil
School fees – miscellaneous fees for H (by direct debit)	400	400	Nil
Tuition Fees (for Ar)	2,300	2,300	Nil
Uniform	400	400	Nil
Lunches and pocket money	800	Nil	800
Transport fee	500	500	Nil
Medical/Dental	400	100	300
Clothing/shoes	800	500	300
Total monthly expenses for children	8,850	7,450	1,400

 

		Paid by H	Paid by W
Total expenses	18,400	14,300	4,100

17.  As can be seen from these tables, most of the claimed expenses are already being paid by H.

18.  The existing arrangement can readily be secured by H’s undertaking to continue meeting the expenses, alternatively an order that he do so.  At the hearing on 7 February 2022, W’s solicitor Ms. Li confirmed that he client would be content with this, with certain exceptions, namely

a.  Gas: The flat is not connected to the main gas supply and the family purchases a cylinder every month or so, with the approximate cost being between $270 – $350/m.  Often it is W who arranges the replacement.    

b.  H had failed to pay the internet component of the utilities. 

c.  W wanted H to pay her for the Children’s uniforms, which she said she had been paying (HK$400) and for their transport (HK$500).  This was something different from her affirmations and her written submissions as these documents indicated that H had paid for these items in the past and she did not express any concerns he would not continue to do so.

19.  In her reply affirmation, W gave examples of disputes over money with H for one-off purchases: his refusal to buy Ar a new pair of shoes (para 22) and pay for repairs for Ar’s mobile phone, in each case forcing her to pay for them herself.  She also purchased a new stove, again from her own savings (para 23).  She claimed that H had failed to comply with the undertaking he gave to the Court recorded in the November 2021 Order (para 24), resulting in total expenditure in the two months since the November 2021 Order of HK$6,730.  None of these allegations were admitted by H.  His solicitors (who by the time of the hearing had ceased acting) denied the allegation that he had breached the undertaking.  

20.  W did not supply much by way of documents to prove her monthly expenditure.  No receipts were attached to the Form E or either of her affirmations.  It is understandable that it is near impossible to provide receipts for everything – food purchased at a wet market for example – but the Court normally expects on such applications at least some receipts e.g. for clothing and shoes so that it can conduct its forensic examination.   

21.  W instead relied primarily on the historical support she said H had providing.  In her first affirmation she said this:

12.  Before the breakdown of the marriage, in addition to paying for the rent, the utilities bills and the children’s school fees, the Respondent also paid for the household expenses and my own expenses.  He made regular payments to me of around HK$3,200 per month for food and additional sums of HK$700 and HK$300 per month for meat and rice respectively.  The Respondent also made additional payments to me for family spending (for example, for purchasing home appliances) and for my own spending from time to time.  On average, I received pocket money of around HK$2,000 per month for my own personal expenses. 

13.  However, since around 2019, the relationship between the Respondent and I deteriorated and the Respondent stopped hiring domestic helper and also reduced the said additional payments to me.  Since around January 2021, he completely stopped paying for my personal spending.  Since March 2021, he also stopped making payment of the HK$700 per month for the meat.  In recent months, he stopped making payment to me altogether and I therefore now receive only around HK$3,500 per month from him for the household and no money for personal expenses. 

22.  I clarified with Ms. Li as to the claimed allowance for food, given that according to these paragraphs the “budget” for food was HK$4,200 i.e. $3,200 + $700 + $300.  She confirmed (on taking instructions) that her client was prepared to accept HK$4,200/m as sufficient. 

23.  H’s response to W’s affirmation is that he had always done his best to provide for all family members according to his ability (H’s affirmation, paras 17, 20) and he denied any suggestion that he had reduced the support given by him before the relationship soured:

21.  The repeated demands of the Petitioner to pay her this or that shows that she is disconnected with the reality of the moment because these days having a roof and food on the table for the family are already great blessings.  She does not care and pays no attention to my mention that I do not have the resources she is seeking to engage into extravagant lifestyle that is beyond my financial means.  I do not have any money to pay for fantasy annual holidays or meet any lavish spending beyond what I can afford.  At present, my limited financial means are hardly enough to pay for the rent of the family home, provide food for the children, meet the expenses for their educational and medical, etc. to name these few only.

22.  Despite the scarcity of means, I have not made any reductions to the usual maintenance funds that I provide for the family.  I absolutely deny that I have stopped providing for my family’s maintenance and any such claims are simply not correct. 

24.  Although in these paragraphs H suggested W was engaging in an “extravagant lifestyle”, there is nothing to indicate W has been extravagant on her spending for herself or the Children nor wishes to be so in the future.  Indeed, it seems to me that her claim is quite modest.      

25.  H accepted that W’s revised budget for food at HK$4,200 was reasonable, and he did not seriously contest the amounts claimed by W for her personal expenditure: his primary focus was on ensuring the Children continued to be provided for.  He said that he covered expense for the Children: it is he who buys their school uniforms, ensures they have lunch money and pays for their transport.  He also said that he is responsible for the medical expenses and gave an example that he takes his son Ad every 6 weeks or so for his blood transfusions, and if it is W who arranges this, or takes any of the other children to the doctor/hospital, then he would cover the costs involved. 

26.  Noting the amounts already paid by H, I will allow the following as expenses to be paid (subject to the question of capacity) by H to W:

(a)  General Expenses

Item	Total (HK$)
Food	4,200
Total monthly household expenses	4,200

(b)  Personal Expenses

Item	Total (HK$)
Meals out of home	200
Transport	200
Clothing/shoes	600
Total monthly personal expenses	1,000

(c)  Children

Item	Total (HK$)
Lunches and pocket money	300
Transport (other)	300
Clothing/shoes	600
Total monthly expenses for children	1,200

	Total: HK$6,400

27.  Subject to the question of capacity – to be addressed next – this will be on the basis that H is to continue to pay for all other items including school fees and extra tuition fees. 

E.      Capacity

28.  As noted, W has never worked.  She receives annual HK Government student subsidies of HK$10,000 (HK$2,500 per child) and an annual HK$5,000 consumption voucher: reply affirmation, para 27.  The student subsidies are paid at different times (because the Children attend various schools) and the consumption voucher in or about October each year.  W has no significant assets and her bank balance is minimal.

29.  In his Form E, H disclosed his monthly income as HK$25,000 plus a small amount (HK$4,316) for a few interpreting jobs he had in the year leading up to its filing.  He said he also received a disability allowance for Ad of HK$2,055/m.  I should say at this point that his Form E was signed on 17 May 2021, and it is readily apparent from his bank statements that by this time the allowance had increased to HK$2,190 per month: SCB statement 7 May 2021.   

30.  H says that his business GDL – in which he holds 25% of the shares – has been hit hard by Covid and the extreme downturn in the number of visitors to Hong Kong, and that this came on top of other factors adversely affecting the company’s performance: the Ebola outbreak in west Africa (a particular focus of the money exchange business) and the 2019 Hong Kong protests. 

31.  W’s position has been consistent throughout her affirmations and the submissions on her Summons: she says that his earnings and savings are greater than he has stated in his Form E, his Answer to her Questionnaires and in his affirmation. 

32.  W pointed to the fact that H had unsuccessfully applied for Government financial assistance, which would indicate he was earning in excess of the upper limit for eligibility for such assistance.  In her 1^st affirmation she said that H had told her he had applied for government subsidies such as public housing and financial assistance for primary and secondary students but failed the means test.  She claims (1^st Affirmation, para 14) “the Respondent would have earned more than around HK$563,000 annually (i.e. HK$47,000 per month) for us to be ineligible for the assistance last year (year 2020-2021)”.  She exhibited (at “DB-1”) a document providing information about the financial assistance schemes for primary and secondary students and which speaks of AFI eligibility benchmarks for the 2021-2022 school year, “AFI” standing for “Adjusted Family Income” as a means test, calculated by dividing the gross annual income of the family by the number of family members “+(1)”.  

33.  According to the same exhibit an AFI exceeding HK$79,976 will exceed the means test and mean the family is not eligible to receive assistance.  Assuming that H made an application for this kind of support, and his income had been fully assessed (W does not say when he applied), this might suggest his income for the year of assessment was in excess of HK$559,832 i.e. (6+1) x HK$79,976. 

34.  W also pointed to H’s spending pattern disclosed in his Form E, which exceeded his claimed income, suggesting that he must have other financial resources available:

15.  Further, the monthly rental of the family home as stated in the Respondent’s Form E amounts to HK$19,000 and as explained above, I receive HK$3,500 from the Respondent monthly.  He also paid for the utilities which is stated to be around HK$2,500 per month and the fee for Ar’s tutorial classes at HK$2,300 per month, which the latter started attending in October 2021. All these already amount to HK$27,300 which exceeds his alleged salary of HK$25,000 per month, not to mention that the Respondent also needs to spend on dining out given that he travels to work from morning til night Monday to Saturday.  Although the Respondent alleged in his Form E that he takes personal loans from friends, he did not specify the amount or identify the creditors and indeed it is stated he has no liability. 

16.  On the other hand, as stated in the Respondent’s Form E (at paragraph 1.16), the matrimonial home is rented under the name of the Respondent’s company [GDL].  The Respondent has not disclosed any document showing that he personal paid for the rent of HK$19,000.  If the rent for the matrimonial home is paid by the said company but not by the Respondent, then the balance of the Respondent’s alleged income of HK$25,000 after payment of the aforesaid food expenses, utilities, tutorial class fees in the total sum of HK$8,300 ($3,500 + 2,500 + 2,300) would be HK$16,700.

35.  H’s affirmation responded to these claims thus:

23.  I am not receiving any financial subsidies from the Government and the Petitioner is well aware of that fact.  If I was receiving such subsidies the Petitioner would have known certainly and the relevant Government Department providing it would have prove me wrong by showing evidence in support.  I affirm that I do not receive any subsidies apart from the Disability allowance of HK$1,950 that is paid into my bank account for Ad.

24.  Additionally, I do not have a goal to go around claiming money from the Government as long as I can afford the expenses of the family; it is an honour for me not to beg.  I am glad to learn through the Petitioner’s lawyer that I actually qualify for some other subsidies which I was not aware of before; I shall apply soon as this suit is resolved.

25.  The Petitioner does not ignore that our application for Financial Assistance for Primary and Secondary students failed not because of the amount that I was earning but because I did not have the documents required to submit within the specified period.  The record from the said Department can easily confirm this information and expose the inaccurate claim made here.

26.  It is true that I am currently spending more than my salary of HKD25,000 per month.  The difference is covered from loans that I have been taking from friends.  The fact that I do not have any institutional loan does not mean I am free from financial difficulties.  I do not borrow any money that needs to be paid back with interests because this is against my religious belief; it is totally forbidden in Islam, so I did not take and I will not take it for whatever reason it may be.

27.  The rental agreement for the matrimonial home was indeed signed under our company name.  However, the company running into loss could not afford to pay for the rent.  I have to pay the rent from my salary since my family must have a shelter.  No demonstration is prove this because I have been drawing the amounts of the rent from my personal account with loans from friends on a monthly basis to deposit into the Landlord bank account.  This process started well before the Petitioner decided to break our marriage. 

28.  Furthermore, I am still a month behind to cover the rent for almost a year already due to shortage of funds.  In fact, the landlord can confirm this and he has been very lenient to me by temporarily reducing the rent from HKD19,000 to HKD17,000 after I explained to him the current financial hardship I have been facing lately.  He can testify to this. 

36.  With his Form H, H supplied bank statements, and an Employers return of GDL indicating income of $25,000/m from this business.  He also provided financial accounts of GDL for the year to 31 March 2019 and a tax assessment for the company for the same year recording assessable profits of HK$160,000.  The accounts including entries for “Directors remuneration” of HK$180,000 for 2018/19 and staff salaries of HK$844,160 for the same year.  

37.  H’s Form E listed his monthly expenses as follows:

(a)  General Expenses

Item	Total (HK$)
Rent	19,000
Mortgage instalments	Nil
Utilities (electricity, gas, rates, telephone & water)	2,500
Management fees	Nil
Food	4,000
Household expenses	800
Car expenses	Nil
Insurance premia	Nil
Domestic helper	Nil
Other (specify)	500
Total monthly household expenses	26,800

(b)  Personal Expenses

Item	Total (HK$)
Meals out of home	Nil
Transport	300
Clothing/shoes	Nil
Personal grooming	Nil
Entertainment/presents	Nil
Holiday	Nil
Medical/Dental	Nil
Tax	2,320
Insurance premia	Nil
Interim maintenance	Nil
Contribution to parents	1,000
Dependent family members	Nil
Other (specify)	500
Total monthly personal expenses	4,120

(c)  Children

Item	Total (HK$)
School fees (Ad and M)	3,235
Extra tuition fees	Nil
School books and stationery	7,500
Transport (including school bus)	800
Medical/Dental	Nil
Extra curricular activities	Nil
Entertainment/presents	Nil
Holidays	Nil
Clothing/shoes	6,000
Insurance premia	Nil
Lunches and pocket money (Ar)	180
Other transport (Ad)	100
Child-minding fees	Nil
Uniform	4,800
Total monthly expenses for children	22,335

	Total: HK$53,255

38.  There seem to be some errors in his entries for Children: $7,500 per month for school books and stationery seems very high as does $4,800 per month for school uniform.  These may be annual figures.  Even so, and also taking into account the HK$2,000 concession made by the landlord of the matrimonial home reduction, H’s monthly expenses are well in excess of his claimed income.    

39.  One of the important disputed items is whether GDL (the tenant of the matrimonial home) is paying the rent or H is doing so on its behalf.  It would have been of some assistance to have more information about the current financial position of the company. At the hearing, H said that financial statements for GDL for the succeeding years 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 were available but had not been supplied either to the Court or W. 

40.  The central problem with H’s assertion of lack of capacity to pay any more than he is doing at present is that his financial disclosure is less than adequate.    

41.  W’s Amended Questionnaire followed a fairly standard format of seeking further particulars of information supplied including significant bank transactions.  H was represented at the time he filed his Answers.  This document unfortunately reveals a complete misunderstanding, or simple ignorance of the duty of full and frank disclosure.

42.  W’s question seeking details of a number of deposits into the SCB account (Question 4) was responded to in this way:

The Respondent is running a money exchange business with restricted information not to be available to unrelated parties save and except by Orders of the Court.

43.  This suggested that H’s account with SCB was used for the business.  At the hearing, H confirmed that GDL did not have its own bank account and all company transactions were run through his SCB account. 

44.  In response to a Question seeking more information about GDL, and two other companies in which H had been involved, H replied:

The petitioner has no role and link whatsoever in the Respondent’s business and therefore should have no authorities to make such requests save as to Order from Court with authorities under the (Matrimonial Regime)

45.  By Question 15 of the Questionnaire, H was asked about the personal loans from friends including as to their terms, dates and amounts of payment etc:

The Respondent has no authorisation from those person who lend the money out to release the particulars to other without Order from court.

46.  All these answers are evasive. It was important for H to explain the deposits into his SCB account, particular given that it was being used for both personal and business purposes.  Further, it was fair for W to request details of personal loans, especially so because H’s Form E was internally inconsistent: Under 2.13 “Liabilities” H entered “N/A” and “HK$0.00”, yet in para 5.5 of the same Form he said that “I have been operating on a small salary with no real savings.  I have even had to resort to taking personal loans from friends to help meet my family expenses.  Even though I did not contract institutional debts, I have been taking personal loans.”  No details were provided as to the quantum/timing/terms of the loans, and as noted, he refused to provide further information to W when requested to do so.  

47.  During the hearing I reminded H of the nature of the duty of full and frank disclosure, pointing out that the cover page of the Form E itself does so.  I gave him an opportunity to provide some information as to the certain deposits into his SCB account. He said that some of the amounts were received from friends for various purposes including because they did not have a Hong Kong account.  As an example, he said that some of the moneys received represented financial assistance for Somali refugee families in Hong Kong, who could not open accounts.  He said he received the financial assistance money and then paid it out to the refugee families in cash.  This was a perfectly reasonable explanation, but one which could and should have been given in his Answers to W’s Questionnaire.   I asked H about the rental payments and for evidence he was making the payments, and he said that he withdrew amounts in cash and then made the deposits into the landlord’s account. 

48.  This attempt to supply further information was too late and inevitably incomplete. 

49.  None of the questions or requests in W’s Amended Questionnaire amounted to unusual or unreasonable requests for information.  H could and should have supplied the information requested, and he had the ability to supply more recent financial statements of GDL to the Petitioner and to the Court, and in respect of the personal loans, all of which would have facilitated the assessment of his ability to pay the amount of MPS and child maintenance requested by the Summons. 

50.  I do not ignore the fact that the management accounts of GDL for the year ended 31 March 2019 show it trading at a loss. The administrative expenses for that period exceeded the company’s operating income.  I have taken into consideration H’s assertion that the business has suffered a downturn due to the pandemic, with other factors negatively influencing its performance.

51.  Nonetheless, I find that the H has been deficient in his financial disclosure including in his decision not to provide proper Answers to W’s Amended Questionnaire.

52.  Taking all matters into account, I am satisfied that H has the ability to pay to W the amount I have assessed should be paid in addition to his existing commitments. 

53.  Before making my order I should address one further matter which arose during the hearing.  H raised a complaint that W was holding on to the Children’s identification documents – passports, ID cards, birth certificates – and refused to provide them to H when he needed e.g. to take them to a medical appointment.  I will include in the order a direction that in the event H takes any of the Children for a medical appointment then W will provide that particular child’s birth certificate or passport or ID card to H, with such document to be handed back to W upon the completion of the appointment. 

Order

54.  I therefore make the following Order on the Summons

(1)  The Respondent do continue to meet the following expenses, namely

(a)  General: the utilities for the matrimonial home including the replacement of the gas cylinder when required. In the event that it is the Petitioner who arranges for replacement of the gas cylinder, the Respondent do reimburse her for the cost

(b)  Children:

(i)     School fees (for Ad and M)

(ii)    School fees (for H)

(iii)   Tuition fees (for Ar)

(iv)   Uniform

(2)  For the avoidance of doubt, this is on the basis that the Respondent will continue to contribute to the additional expenses of the Children as may arise, including for transport, pocket money and clothing/shoes, as he has been doing in the past and as he reassured the Court at the hearing of the Summons he would continue to in the future.                    

(3)  The Respondent do pay maintenance pending suit to the Petitioner the sum of $1,800 per month, being $800 for general expenses plus $1,000 personal expenses.

(4)  The Respondent do pay to the Petitioner interim maintenance for the benefit of the Children in the sum of $4,600 per month being $3,400 general expenses and $1,200 children related expenses.

(5)  For the avoidance of doubt the total sum to be paid for MPS/IM is $6,400 per month.

(6)  These payments are to take effect from 1 March 2022 and from 1^st day of each calendar month thereafter.  I will further order that the sum of $3,000 be paid by way of backdated personal expenses at the allowed sum of $1,000/m x 3 months (December 2021, January and February 2022). All payments to be made into the Petitioner’s Hang Seng Bank Account.

(7)  There be a penal notice attached to this Order.

(8)  In the event the Respondent is required to take one or more of the Children for a medical appointment, the Petitioner to provide at his request the birth certificate or passport or ID card of the said child/children for the purposes of the appointment, such document to be returned to the Petitioner at the conclusion of the appointment. 

55.  Ms. Li on behalf of the Petitioner sought the costs of the Summons.  W has been mostly successful and I see no reason why she should not have her costs as clearly the application was necessary.  I make an order that the costs of the Summons be paid by the Respondent to the Petitioner to be taxed if not agreed, and for the Petitioner’s own costs to be taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulations.

56.  One final point: If there is a HKG financial support program for which this family may be eligible, it seems to me that an application for such assistance should be made now, rather than (as H said in paragraph 24 of his affirmation) at the end of the case.