HCMJ v. HYM

CAMP 244/2020

[2021] HKCA 878

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 244 OF 2020

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM FCMC NO. 12078 OF 2014)

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

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

I. Leave to appeal

1.1   Deputy District Judge J Chow, on the petitioner wife’s (‘Wife’) application for ancillary relief for herself and the two children of the family, made the following orders against the respondent husband (‘Husband’) : the husband to pay lump sum payments to the wife including (i) maintenance for the wife of HK$12,607,755.17; (ii) maintenance for the elder son of HK$1,379,484; and (iii) maintenance of the younger daughter of HK$3,127,950 within one month from the decree absolute and failing which the husband shall transfer the matrimonial property, namely, a piece of land in Hunghom, Hong Kong to the wife (‘the Land’).

1.2   The Husband applied for leave to appeal against the Judge’s decision which was refused by the Judge.  The Husband now renews his application before us.  The Husband also applies for a stay of execution of the Judge’s decision.  We will deal with the application on paper.  

1.3   The wife and the husband are in their forties and fifties.  The son and the daughter who were aged 20 and 14 at the time of the trial below are pursuing their education in Australia.  The Wife has relocated to Australia to look after the children on a student guardian visa. The Judge had evaluated and capitalised their needs at $17,178,189.17.  The Judge considered a clean break order is appropriate.  The Land is valued by joint experts at $17,200,000.

1.4   In 2014, the Husband was arrested and charged with money laundering for over HK$10,000,000 (DCCC 787/2014).  He was convicted and imprisoned, and is expected to be released from prison in June 2021.

1.5   The Judge found that the Husband’s evidence on his financial position to be totally unsatisfactory and he has failed to make proper disclosure of his assets.  The Judge drew the inference that the Husband has sufficient resource to pay the needs of the Wife and the children.

1.6   The Husband’s draft grounds of appeal focused on the Judge’s finding of his non‑disclosure.

1.7   We are not satisfied that the challenge is reasonably arguable.  The Judge has properly considered the law on non‑disclosure and evaluated the evidence.  We are not satisfied that the Husband can reasonably show that the findings of fact and the exercise of discretion by the Judge are plainly wrong. 

1.8   The Husband has failed to satisfy the threshold for obtaining leave.  As the leave application is dismissed, the stay application is also dismissed.  Accordingly, the application is dismissed with costs to the Wife.   This Court will assess the costs summarily.  As this is a renewed application the costs are assessed at HK$100,000 which includes $75,000 counsel fee to the Wife.   

1.9   As the Husband’s application is totally without merit, pursuant to Order 59, rule 2A(8) of the Rules of the High Court, we will make an order that no party may request our determination to be reconsidered at an oral hearing inter partes.