KCLM v. GW

FCMC 8151 / 2024

[2026] HKFC 116

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES

NUMBER 8151 OF 2024

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

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

______________________________________

DECISION
(Maintenance Pending Suit)

______________________________________

1.  This is Petitioner’s application for interim maintenance for the children and maintenance pending suit. I set out the full wording of the Petitioner’s summons dated 15 October 2024 (“The Wife’s MPS Application”) below:

Unless the Respondent agrees to forthwith reinstate the financial status quo of the family (including, but not limited to, depositing his income from [DC China Co] and [DC Service Group Co] into the HSBC bank account in the Petitioner and Respondent’s joint names (HSBC A/C No. xxx-xxx-xxx-xxx), procuring full and prompt reimbursement of the educational expenses of the Children of the family (namely, [the Eldest Son], a boy born on 20 September 2008 and [the Youngest Son], a boy born on 17 December 2010) and general household expenses, and promptly arrange payment of outstanding reimbursement claims submitted by the Petitioner, then until further Order of the Court:-

a. In respect of interim and ‘interim interim’ (i.e. pending substantive hearing of this Summons) maintenance for the Children, the Respondent shall pay to the Petitioner a sum of HK$308,500 per month and per child, with the first payment to be made on the 1st day of the month immediately following the Order(s) to be made and thereafter on the 1st day of each successive month;

b. In respect of maintenance pending suit for the Petitioner (including on interim basis pending the substantive hearing of this Summons), the Respondent shall pay to the Petitioner a sum of HK$963,000 per month, with the first payment to be made on the 1st day of the month immediately following the Order(s) to be made and thereafter on the 1st day of each successive month;

c. Within 7 days of the Order made hereupon, the Respondent shall pay / procure payment to the Petitioner a sum of HK$464,318.33, being the accumulated total of outstanding reimbursement for household expenses, the Petitioner’s personal expenses, and the children’s expenses incurred by the Petitioner from 8 June 2024 to 19 August 2024.

d. Such other backdated payments as the Court deems fit and appropriate.

2.  The background of this case has been set out at paragraphs 3 to 7 of the Decision handed down on 20 March 2026 (“the Forum Non Conveniens Decision”). I shall not repeat the same but will set out salient events that are particular to the Wife’s MPS application and I will also set out salient events that have happened since the handing down of the Forum Non Conveniens Decision.

3.  I shall adopt the same abbreviations used in the Forum Non Conveniens Decision.

4.  The hearing of the Wife’s MPS application spanned over 2 days. On the first day, the parties were able to reach partial settlement on the Wife’s MPS Application. I set out a summary of the undertakings given by the Husband, as agreed between the parties, as follows:

1)  The Husband shall continue to make monthly mortgage payments on the Former Matrimonial Home by depositing the sum into the parties’ joint account.

2)  Upon the Wife’s production of demand notes/ invoices, the Husband shall reimburse the Wife management fees for the Former Matrimonial Home

3)  Upon the Wife’s production of demand notes/ invoices, the Husband shall make direct payment and/or settle the school fees/tuition fees of the Children.

4)  The Husband shall pay a sum of $100,000 per month as interim interim maintenance for the Children on or before the 30^th day of every month commencing September 2025.

5.  The Wife in turn gave her undertaking not to sell, transfer, assign, charge, mortgage and/or further diminish the value of the Former Matrimonial Home.

6.  According to the Wife’s latest submission (dated 2 June 2026), she confirms the Husband complied and continues to comply with the undertakings.

7.  On 30 September 2025, the Beijing Haidian Court ordered, inter alia, the Husband to pay to the Wife children maintenance in the sum of RMB¥150,000 (equivalent to HK$172,500 at the exchange rate of 1:1.15) per child per month. The Wife claims the Husband has not complied with the same.

8.  Pursuant to the Forum Non Conveniens Decision, on 20 March 2026, I ordered the Petition be stayed in favour of the Beijing Haidian People’s Court as being the more appropriate forum.

9.  On 2 June 2026, pursuant to directions given by the court, the parties filed supplemental submissions on the impact of the Forum Non Conveniens Decision on the Wife’s MPS Application. In summary, the Wife urges the court to continue to adjudicate on her MPS Application. However, the Husband submits this Court should either stay the MPS Application or dismiss the same on the ground that the proceedings have now been stayed and this Court has no further jurisdiction to deal with the Wife’s MPS Application.

10.  On 5 June 2026, I handed down my decision on the Wife’s application for leave to appeal (“the Leave to Appeal Decision”) in which I grant leave to the Wife to appeal against the Forum Non Conveniens Decision based on her draft intended ground 1 of appeal (that is, relating to the proper construction of s.16(1)(e) of Cap 639).

DISCUSSION

11.  I have considered the submissions and authorities lodged by the parties. I do not intend to deal with each and every submission made but shall only deal with the salient submissions as relevant to the present Decision.

12.  Ms Yip SC for the Wife insists this Court should hand down its decision on the Wife’s MPS Application. I have considered the authorities cited by Ms Yip SC but do not find them to be of any assistance. The present case is peculiar in its own facts in that leave to appeal on the issue of forum non conveniens has been granted.

13.  Since leave to appeal on the Wife’s draft intended ground 1 of appeal was granted on 5 June 2026, I do not find it appropriate to render judgment on the Wife’s MPS Application as the appeal may or may not be dismissed. The outcome of the Court of Appeal’s decision is determinative of whether the Wife’s MPS application should be granted.

14.  Although I have granted leave to appeal on the draft intended ground 1 of appeal, I have clearly stated that I did not find the said draft intended ground to have any reasonable prospects of success. It was only in the interests of justice that leave to appeal has been granted. I do not repeat my reasoning in the Leave to Appeal Decision. I therefore do not accept Ms Yip SC’s submissions that the judgment on the MPS Application should be given because there are real prospects of success on her intended ground of appeal.

15.  I have considered whether I should err in favour of the Wife and proceed to deal with her MPS Application because of the purported financial hardships she is facing. In considering the Wife’s financial situation I note the Husband has complied with and continues to comply with the undertakings given on 22 September 2025. I further note the Beijing Haidian Court’s order against the Husband for monthly children maintenance in the total sum of RMB¥300,000 (equivalent to HK$345,000).  Hence, the Wife should be receiving approximately a total of HK$445,000 per month for children maintenance (the sum being the total sum of the Husband’s undertaking and the Beijing Haidian Court children maintenance order). I am therefore of the view the Wife’s financial situation, as it is now, is not as dire as per her submissions made at the MPS hearing.

16.  Moreover, for reasons already explained at paragraphs 81 – 83 of the Forum Non Conveniens Decision, it is open to the Wife to make an application for advance payment (or advance execution) with the Beijing Haidian Court for the purposes of meeting her interim financial needs if necessary. The Wife is therefore not left without recourse.

17.  As per the Forum Non Conveniens Decision, I found Beijing Haidian Court to be the more appropriate forum for these divorce proceedings to be tried. Furthermore, for detailed reasons set out in the Forum Non Conveniens Decision, the Beijing Haidian Court will not recognize any order now made by the Hong Kong courts. In such circumstances, there is a real risk that any overpayment of maintenance to the Wife may not be dealt with by way of equalization in the Beijing Haidian Court.

18.  In such circumstances, I decline to give my judgment on the Wife’s MPS Application now. I am of the view it is more proper to give my judgment after the conclusion of the appeal on the Forum Non Conveniens Decision.

19.  I therefore make the following orders:

1)  The Petitioner’s summons dated 15 October 2024 be stayed pending the conclusion of the appeal against the Forum Non Conveniens Decision handed down on 20 March 2026.

2)  The Respondent’s undertakings given on 22 September 2025 continue to stand.

3)  There be liberty to restore.

4)  Costs be reserved (including the costs of additional submissions lodged on 2 June 2026).