AC v. MFHJ

FCMC 17626/2012

[2024] HKFC 44

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES NO. 17626 OF 2012

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

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

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

J U D G M E N T
(Master’s Appeal on Adjournment)

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

1.  This is a hearing of the Respondent Father (“the Father”)’s appeal against the order of Master TK Lam of the Family Court made on 30 January 2024 in which the learned Master adjourned the Petitioner Mother (“the Mother”)’s Notice of Application for Ancillary Relief (Form 8) for a Pre-trial Review before a Family Judge at Court 50 at 9:30am on 11 June 2024 with 1 hour reserved.

2.  The Mother opposed the Appeal.

3.  Today’s hearing is only fixed for 10 minutes and due to the constraint in time, I will give a short extempore decision on the Father’s appeal.

4.  This case has a long history. The parties’ divorce was concluded long ago and what remains in issue is the daughter’s maintenance.

5.  From the voluminous documents in the court files, I could see that as late as 20 October 2023, Deputy Judge Allison has given a judgment on the Father’s latest application for variation of the daughter (who is now aged 16, turning 17 very shortly)’s maintenance payable by the Mother. In the Judgment, the Mother was ordered to pay HK$10,000 per month as the daughter’s maintenance. But shortly afterwards (on 22 December 2023), the Mother filed her Form 8 asking for the daughter’s maintenance to be revised downward to HK$2,750 per month, claiming that the Father has not disclosed the fact that he was receiving financial assistance from the school towards the daughter’s school fees during the trial before Deputy Judge Allison. Her application was fixed before Master Lam on 30 January 2024, during which the Master made the order for adjournment for PTR.

6.  The Father has not lodged any skeleton submissions. At today’s hearing, the Father submitted that Deputy Judge Allison was aware of the financial assistance from the school when she made her decision and therefore, there is simply no merits in the Mother’s application for variation of maintenance whatsoever. He argued that the Master should have dismissed the Mother’s application right away, instead of adjourning it for a PTR.

7.  Master’s appeal before a Judge is by way of re-hearing, and the Judge treats the matter as though it came before him for the first time: O.58 r.1 The Rules of the District Court, Cap. 336H and Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2024 §58/1/2.

8.  In my view, whether the Mother’s application has merits needs to be decided by a Judge after considering all the available evidence. The Master was only exercising his case management powers in adjourning the matter for a PTR so that the matter could be properly prepared for its consideration by a Judge. The Master has also given other case management directions (including the filing of Questionnaires, Answers and Affidavits) so that the application could be set down for a substantive hearing by the Judge as soon as practicable.

9.  I am not convinced that there is any flaw in the Master’s case management decisions.

10.  There is no merit in the Father’s appeal, which is hereby dismissed.

11.  Both parties do not ask for costs. There shall be no order as to costs.