NWP v. JOCK

HCMP 1496/2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 1496 OF 2017

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM FCMC NO 2539 OF 2015)

____________

____________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Poon JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

1.  By a judgment handed down on 6 February 2017 (“the MPS Judgment”), Deputy District Judge A N Tse Ching, sitting in the Family Court, ordered :

(1)   the Husband (Respondent) do pay the Wife (Petitioner) maintenance pending suit for the benefit of the Wife and the Child of the family in the sum of HK$51,000.00 per month, such payments to be backdated to 6 September 2016 (the date of the Wife’s application);

(2)   the Husband do forthwith pay or cause to be paid a sum of HK$56,693.00 to enable liabilities and expenses reasonably incurred for the benefit of the Child to be paid; and

(3)   the Husband do pay the Wife costs to be taxed if not agreed.

2.  The Husband’s subsequent application for leave to appeal was dismissed by the Judge on 13 June 2017.

3.  Undeterred, the Husband renewed his application for leave to appeal to this Court by way of a summons filed on 27 June 2017.

4.  We have considered the written materials placed before us.  We think the Husband’s application can be disposed of on paper shortly and without an oral hearing.  We now hand down our judgment.

5.  The circumstances leading to the Wife’s application for maintenance pending suit had been set out in the MPS Judgment.  The only issue before the Judge was the amount of maintenance pending suit to be ordered.  The Judge had gone through the evidence in connection with the Wife’s application, the parties’ respective case and submissions with care.  The Judge had regard to the relevant legal principles applicable to maintenance pending suit application (paragraphs 18-20 of the MPS Judgment).  She noted the parties’ disputes on a variety of matters and considered she could only adopt a broad-brush approach in determining the amount to be ordered, having regard to what was reasonable in light of the parties’ previous standard of living.

6.  As to the Husband’s case that he did not have ability to pay, the Judge pointed out that he had failed to make full and frank disclosure of his financial position, including the Trust and the companies associated with it.  The Judge was of the view that the Court should adopt a robust approach in its assumptions as to the Husband’s ability to pay.  On this basis, she made the Order set out in paragraph 1 above.

7.  In our view, the Judge had adopted the correct approach to the application and her reasons cannot be flawed.  We agree with the order that she made.  We have also carefully read her reasons for refusing leave to appeal.  We agree with the Judge that there is simply no reasonable prospect of the Court of Appeal interfering with her discretion in making the order as she did.

8.  We have considered the proposed grounds of appeal and the Husband’s submissions.  We need not repeat them.  It is sufficient for present purposes to simply state that we agree entirely with Mr Jeremy Chan, counsel for the Wife, as per his written submissions dated 11 July 2017, that there is simply no substance in any of the Husband’s proposed grounds of appeal.  His application for leave to appeal must be dismissed.

9.  For the above reasons, we refuse the Husband’s leave application and dismiss his summons dated 27 June 2017 with costs to the Wife to be paid forthwith, to be taxed if not agreed.

10.  Since the Husband’s application is wholly without merit, we make an order under Order 59 rule 2A(8) of the Rules of the High Court that no party may request our decision to be reconsidered at an oral hearing inter partes.