S,A v. T,M

FCMC 3577 / 2024

[2025] HKFC 180

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES

NO. 3577 OF 2024

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

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

______________________________________

DECISION

(Variation of Costs Order Nisi)

_______________________________________

1.  This is the Respondent’s (“R”) application for variation of costs order nisi made by this court after the dismissal of R’s Summons on jurisdictional challenge (“Jurisdiction Summons”) on 22 May 2025. The decision on the Jurisdiction Summons is at [2025] HKFC 88.

2.  R argued that the costs order should not follow the event of the Jurisdiction Summons but should be reserved. She has not specified in her Summons until when the costs “be reserved”. It appears from R’s written submission that she asked the costs of the Jurisdiction Summons be reserved pending the determination of the ancillary relief proceedings.

3.  For the reasons below, I dismiss R’s Summons for variation of the costs order nisi.

4.  Firstly, it is well established that costs are in the discretion of the court. The discretion shall be exercised judicially. Order 62 rule 5 of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”) set out the matters that the court should have regard to in the exercise of discretion on costs. The starting point of awarding costs follow the event applies to matrimonial and family proceedings as in general civil cases, save that the court has a broader discretion when dealing with children matter (which is not present case): Order 62 rule 3(2) of RHC; L v C CACV 169/2006, 19 March 2008, Gojkovic v Gojkovic [1991] 2 FLR 233, SSLT v SMFC [2020] HKFLR 1, §18. P is the successful party in the Jurisdiction Summons, the starting point is that he should be entitled to the costs. There is no reason to depart from this starting point in this case.

5.  Secondly, R’s challenge to jurisdiction is unrelated to and independent of the outcome of the parties’ ancillary relief dispute. The cases cited by R do not assist her as these cases are either on costs of ancillary relief dispute (F v F (No 2) [2003] 3 HKLRD 976) or is subject to UK Family Procedure Rules which are different from the present rules applicable in Hong Kong (J v J [2015] 1 Costs LO 31).

6.  Thirdly, in line with the underlying objectives of the RHC, the court shall make immediate costs order of interlocutory applications where appropriate: Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2025, Vol 1, §62/5/A. It is unnecessary and unsatisfactory to leave the costs of this interlocutory application undecided and hanging over the mind of the parties until the end of the ancillary relief proceedings, the outcome of which is unrelated to this interlocutory application.

7.  Fourthly, the disparity of financial resources of P and R is not a reason to depart from the starting point of costs follow the event.

8.  The asset schedule prepared by R disclosed assets of at least US$2.1 million on her balance sheet. Her unaffirmed Form E filed on 26 August 2025 shows financial resources of at least HK$14 million available to her. Her bank and credit card statements reveal spending of over HK$200,000 on designer goods such as Prada, Gucci, Hermes, Dior and Longchamp in around April to July 2025. Further, it is not in dispute that P has been paying her monthly sums since 2019 to meet the expenses of her and the children, including the children’ tuition fees.

9.  Fifthly, R’s complaints on the amount of costs incurred (R’s written submission §6) as a reason to have the costs reserved has no leg to stand. R has contributed to the disproportionate costs incurred in these proceedings. R’s Form H dated 24 February 2025 (prior to the hearing of the Jurisdiction Summons) disclosed her costs of HK$1,555,673. R has signed the Form H. She must be fully aware of the costs spent. R was legally represented and ought to be fully advised of the adverse costs consequences if she failed in the Jurisdiction Summons.

10.  Sixthly, for completeness, I do not see any reason to support the suggestion of reserving the costs pending the determination of the New Jersey proceedings, which R appeared to have raised earlier but not argued in the written submissions. Counsel of both parties have confirmed at the hearing in February that the two proceedings are totally independent and the parties are aware of and accept the risk of running the two proceedings in parallel. The reference to the progress of the New Jersey proceedings in footnote 4 of R’s submission is not a reason to vary the costs of this interlocutory application.

11.  In sum, there is no reason to depart from the starting point of costs follow the event. R’s Summons for variation of costs is dismissed.

12.  P is the successful party in this variation Summons and should be entitled to costs of this Summons, which was summarily assessed at HK$60,000.