HK v. OTM

FCMC 3332 / 2019

[2019] HKFC 310

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES

NUMBER 3332 OF 2019

________________________

________________________

____________________________________________

J U D G M E N T
(Void Marriages and Forum non conveniens)

____________________________________________

Introduction

1.  This is an application by the respondent husband dated the 30 July 2019 as follows:

(1)  These proceedings commenced by Petitioner’s petition dated 22 March 2019 herein including the application for ancillary relief in the District Court of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region be stayed on grounds of forum non-conveniens, namely the Court of First lnstance of Casablanca., Morocco is a more appropriate forum for the hearing of all matters between the parties;

The application is resisted by the wife who maintains that Hong Kong is clearly and distinctly the most appropriate forum to adjudicate on all issues pertaining to the parties’ marriage, including the marriage itself, the children and ancillary relief. 

2.  The factual matrix in this case, is, as pointed out by counsel for the husband, quite interesting. The parties who are of Moroccan/French extraction, first married in a civil ceremony in Paris, France in the late 1980’s. They subsequently married for a second time in Casablanca, Morocco about 2 ½ years later. There is no doubt that the second marriage was a religious ceremony and that culturally they observed a number of Moroccan traditions. It is also a Muslim marriage. Interestingly they both stated to the authorities that they were single at that time and although there was a recognized convention for registering their French marriage in Morocco, they did not do so.

3.  It is the husband’s case that the more relevant marriage is the Moroccan one. Rather late in the day he has also raised the possibility that the Hong Kong court has no jurisdiction over the second marriage as it was “potentially polygamous” at the time that the parties entered into it – although I am told that the husband did not ever take a second wife. If I am not with him on these points, then the husband says that in any event the proceedings should be stayed as Morocco is clearly the more appropriate forum. He has issued proceedings in Morocco and wishes those to continue.

4.  The wife for her part maintains that it is only possible to be married once and therefore the civil French marriage is the relevant marriage as it is first in time and there is no issue with respect to its validity. She asks for a divorce based on the first marriage and for a declaration therefore that the second marriage be declared null and void. She says that the second marriage is void ab initio as it is not possible to be married twice to the same person. Thus it is her case that whether or not the second marriage is “potentially polygamous” is little more than a red herring – as if the marriage is void in any event it matters not whether it is “potentially polygamous” or not. She asks that the husband’s summons be dismissed and that the matter proceed in Hong Kong. She reiterates that in her view Hong Kong is clearly and distinctly the more appropriate forum to deal with this matter.

The hearing on the 22 November 2019              

5.  As indicated during the hearing I am conscious of the fact that this application is potentially time sensitive given that there was a hearing in the Moroccan courts on Monday 25^th November. With that in mind the husband entered into the following undertaking at the hearing on the 22 November:

AND UPON the Respondent undertaking to the Petitioner and to the Court that the Respondent, whether by himself, his servants, agents or otherwise in his personal capacity or in the capacity of an officer, servant, or agent of the Respondent, shall not take any further actions that may bring the Morocco proceedings forward pending the determination by Hong Kong Court or the withdrawal of the Respondent’s Summons dated 30 July 2019 (“Stay Summons”).

AND UPON the Respondent undertaking to the Petitioner and to the Court that with the view of giving effect to the paragraph about the Respondent shall not attend the first hearing of the Moroccan proceedings now fixed on 25 November 2019 and any subsequent hearings of the Moroccan proceedings pending the determination by Hong Kong Court or the withdrawal of the Respondent’s Stay Summons and he shall give instruction to his legal representative to apply to adjourn the Moroccan proceedings pending the determination by Hong Kong Court of the withdrawal of the Respondent’s Stay Summons.

This is in addition to the undertakings that he gave in similar terms on the 25 October 2019.

6.  The wife has not yet issued any proceedings to stay the proceedings in Morocco – but I am told that they are in “the wings” so to speak and are dependent in part on the outcome of this application.

7.  The husband submitted during the hearing, that as the Moroccan marriage is “potentially polygamous” that the Hong Kong court has no jurisdiction over it in any event and to that end he asked initially for an adjournment. When I was not with him on this, he sought in the alternative, for a direction that the Single Joint Expert be asked to file a supplemental report to deal with the polygamy point. He then asked for leave for both parties to file supplemental written submissions. As will be seen I do not think in the circumstances that that will be necessary.

Issues

8.  Thus the issues presently before the court are as follows:

The marriage

Firstly, does the Hong Kong court have jurisdiction to hear this matter given the issues raised by the husband with respect to the potentially polygamous nature of the second marriage?

Is it possible for the wife to proceed as set out in her divorce petition i.e. to seek a divorce based on the first marriage and for a declaration that the second marriage be declared null and void?

Forum

Secondly, is Hong Kong or the Court of First Instance of Casablanca, Morocco, the most appropriate forum to deal with this matter?

Background to the marriage 

9.  Both counsel set out the background to the marriage in their written submissions. On this occasion, and given that time is of the essence, I have taken the liberty of repeating Ms Rattigan’s background as set out below.

Background

4.  W is 47 years old, she is of French and Moroccan extraction having a French Mother and Moroccan Father. She has dual French/Moroccan nationality as she was born in Morocco, although she is a French citizen. She attended a French school growing up in Morocco and moved to live in France as a teenager. She met H in France.

5.  W has worked in various different capacities during the marriage but since the children were born her primary role has been to be a full-time mother to them. She currently has a company ES Ltd., a Hong Kong company through which she has run her business although this is not currently trading.

6.  H is 48 years old, he is of dual Moroccan/French nationality. He was born in Morocco to Moroccan parents and was educated there. He moved to France for his education and subsequently became a French citizen. H is a banker and has enjoyed a successful International banking career in Paris, London and Hong Kong. He has never worked in Morocco. He is currently working for ABC by whom he has been employed for about 10 years, since 2009 in London and subsequently being assigned to work in Hong Kong since 2011.

7.  There are two children of the family ATM (“A”) a boy born on XX January 2003, now aged 16, and KTM (“K”) a girl born on XX January 2005, now 14. The Children are studying at the X International School, A in Grade 11 and K in Grade 8.  There is no plan to change the Children’s school, they will stay at X; until they both graduate and there after attend university in the UK [P/8/§2].

8.  The parties met in Paris in 1996, H was working there and W had just graduated from Business School. At that time H’s parents were also living in Paris, as were W’s [P/20/§3].

9.  The parties began to co-habit in December 1996 in Paris .and lived together there until May 1998 when H moved to London for work. W followed him to London in October 1998 and they were married in Paris on 12^th December 1998. The parties remained living in London for 11 years, from 1998 to 2009. Both Children were born there.

10. During the time the parties lived in London, between early 1999 and May 2000 H was assigned to work in Paris. The parties purchased an apartment there but W remained in London, as stated H returned to his job in London in 2000. Unfortunately, due to the GFC H lost his job in 2009.It was decided that the family would go to Morocco, initially for the Summer period in June 2009, but W stayed on there with the Children for the next two years. H did not stay with the family, he was offered a job back in London which he started in November/December 2009.

11.  H was offered a job with ABC in 2011 and he moved to Hong Kong with this job in May 2011. He was joined here by W and the two children in August 2011 and they have lived here since.

12.  It was some 2½ years after they were married in Paris that the parties went through a religious ceremony and registered their marriage in Morocco on XX May 2001. W refers to it as a renewing of vows [P/24/§16], she also refers to the fact that as a woman she was not allowed to be present for negotiations pertaining to a marriage contract, it was discussed between male members of each family, and religious notaries known as Aduls. She was presented with a document in Arabic which she does not read and signed it [P/24/§18].

13.  H has remained working for ABC since the parties came to Hong Kong in 2011.  His income and bonuses from which family expenses are met and continue to be met are deposited into his sole DEF bank account in Hong Kong [P/78/§2S]. H will continue to work in Hong Kong with DEF for the foreseeable future.

14.  The lease on the matrimonial home was renewed on 1^st July 2019 for a two year period [P/80/§29].

15.  W filed her Petition on 22^nd March 2019 [P/l]. She has issued a Summons to amend the Petition on 18^th October 2019 [P/229] in respect of the date and place of the Moroccan ceremony.

16.  H brought proceedings in Morocco on 28^th March 2019, although these were not served on W until recently [P/S2-S3] until 26^th September 2019 at the Matrimonial Home in Hong Kong. It is of note that H does not seek a dissolution of the French marriage in this Petition.

17. H did not file his stay application until 31^st July 2019 [P/33].

10.  It is of note that Ms Chow also emphasizes other aspects of the parties’ relationship in her background including the following:

19.  H made it quite clear that if his professional development no longer requires him to work in Hong Kong, the family has to leave and as they cannot afford to live in his city.  Morocco is their home and will be a potential destination.

20.  The family’s cultural and religious foothold has always remained with Morocco:

(1)  It is not disputed that at least 50% of parties’ asset lie in landed properties in Morocco. Other landed properties are in Paris and Canada, and none in Hong Kong. The choice of location speaks for itself.

(2)  Since the children were born, W and the children always returned to Morocco for 2 months during summer every year, staying at the family home with H’s mother and spending time with family and friends.

(3)  The family observes Muslim/Moroccan rituals, such as fasting during Ramadan, learning Arabic and reading the Holy Quran.

21.  The fact that parties celebrated the Moroccan Marriage in accordance with Muslim religious law is best testament to the fact that both H and W place great emphasis on and respect for Muslim/Moroccan values. In W’s own words, it was “unnecessary to sign another marriage certificate and to formally register another marriage in Morocco, since [parties} could always retranscribe the French marriage in Morocco.”

11.  Ms. Rattigan pointed out however that the wife does not accept that the family have always observed Muslim/Moroccan rituals and she does not consider herself particularly religious, neither can she read and write traditional Arabic. It is acknowledged that along with most ex patriates, the family are in Hong Kong because of the husband’s employment. She further accepts that the parties hold property in Morocco, although there is some dispute about valuations and some of those properties are held jointly with other family members by virtue of inheritance.  

Discussion

The marriage

Does the Hong Kong court have jurisdiction to hear this matter given the issues raised by the husband with respect to the potentially polygamous nature of the second marriage?

Is it possible for the wife to proceed as set out in her divorce petition i.e. to seek a divorce based on the first marriage and for a declaration that the second marriage be declared null and void?

12.  It is clear from a reading of both sections 3 and 4 of the Matrimonial Causes Ordinance, Cap 179 that the wife has prima facie jurisdiction to proceed with both a divorce and a nullity petition in Hong Kong as she was habitually resident in the territory from August 2011 to date. This has not been challenged by the husband.    

13.  Ms Chow, counsel for the husband has also referred me to section 9 of the Matrimonial Causes Ordinance, Cap 179, which states inter alia that the court in Hong Kong only has jurisdiction where the marriage is “monogamous”. The issue then becomes how a court should treat a marriage that is “potentially polygamous” but is not in reality polygamous. To that end reference can also be made to the 18^th edition of Rayden at paragraph 8.44, which dealt inter alia with the legal position in England and Wales prior to the change in their legislation brought about by the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995. Paragraph 8.44 states as follows:

Polygamous marriage

Polygamous marriage: parties domiciled in England and Wales

8.44 A marriage celebrated after 31 July 1971 is void in the case of a polygamous marriage entered into outside England and Wales if either party was at the time of the marriage domiciled in England and Wales.  However, such a marriage is not polygamous if at its inception neither party has any spouse additional to the other. The effect is to render void only marriages which are actually polygamous, not those which are potentially polygamous. The effect of the amendment to s 11 (d) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 is also to remove the anomaly revealed by Hussαin v Hussαin.

14.  It seems that there is no case law on this point in Hong Kong. The situation prior to the amendment in England and Wales can be found in the Court of Appeal decision in Hussain v Hussain [1983] Fam 26, [1982] 3 All ER 369 CA. This case is not however analogous to the situation here.

15.  In any event it seems to me that the argument is somewhat moot. It is clear that the parties entered into a valid monogamous marriage in Paris in 1998. The marriage was not subsequently dissolved or annulled. Consequently, this marriage remains valid and cannot be overtaken or subsumed in any way by the second Moroccan marriage. The fact that the parties chose not to register that marriage in Morocco is neither here nor there. It does not affect the validity of the marriage or its standing in Hong Kong.

16.  I am told that the Moroccan courts would not recognise the French marriage as it was not registered in Morocco. Thus arguably it cannot be dissolved by them. It follows therefore that they would only dissolve the Moroccan marriage and on the face of it the first marriage would continue to subsist, although it is the husband’s case that a divorce in Morocco would dissolve all marriages. In his second affidavit dated the 9 October 2019 he states at paragraph 20 (2) as follows:

If our marital status is put to an end by the Moroccan court, the effect of the Moroccan decree is to terminate the marriage tie between the parties for all purposes, not just in Morocco, but also in other jurisdictions, including Hong Kong and elsewhere.

It is not clear how this would work in reality.

17.  In any event it seems to me that prima facie the courts in Hong Kong can proceed in the manner anticipated by the wife in her petition. The court can deal with both marriages – it can dissolve the French marriage and then deal with any issues relating to the children and ancillary relief.

18.  The question then becomes whether or not it is possible to declare the second marriage void ab initio on the premise that at the time of the marriage both parties were already lawfully married? (See section 20(1) (c ) Matrimonial Causes Ordinance, Cap 179). The difficulty is that this section normally applies to bigamous situations, where one of the parties is already married, but to a third party. Here they were married to each other. I asked Ms Rattigan if there was any case law on this point also – but unfortunately none could be found. Rayden was also unable to assist. In such circumstances and although unusual I am inclined to accept the arguments advanced by the wife in this respect. Consequently, it seems to me that it is possible for the court to declare the Moroccan marriage void ab initio.       

19.  In such circumstances it seems to me that there is no need for a second report to be commissioned from the Single Joint Expert on the issue of polygamy as this will not affect the outcome in any way. 

Forum

Is Hong Kong or the Court of First Instance of Casablanca, Morocco, the most appropriate forum to deal with this matter?

The law

20.  The most recent restatement of the law on forum non conveniens, in matrimonial proceedings, can be found in the Court of Final Appeal’s decision in SPH v SA [2014] 3 HKLRD 497. This stated as follows:

VI Forum non conveniens: principles

50.  It is now well established in Hong Kong that the general principles of forum non conveniens apply to the stay of matrimonial proceedings: Johnston, Conflict of Laws in Hong Kong (2nd ed 2012), para 7.104.

51.  We adopt the re-statement of the principles in matrimonial proceedings by the Court of Appeal (Cheung JA and Tang JA (as he then was)) in DGC v SLC (née C) [2005] 3 HKC 293, 297-298, applying Spiliada Maritime Corporation v. Cansulex Limited [1987] 1 AC 460, 477 and Louvet v. Louvet [1990] 1 HKLR 670, 674-675:

“1.  The single question to be decided is whether there is some other available forum, having competent jurisdiction, which is the appropriate forum for the trial of an action i.e. in which the action may be tried more suitably for the interests of all the parties and the ends of justice?

   2.  In order to answer this question, the applicant for the stay has to establish that first, Hong Kong is not the natural or appropriate forum (‘appropriate’ in this context means the forum has the most real and substantial connection with the action) and second, there is another available forum which is clearly or distinctly more appropriate than Hong Kong. Failure by the applicant to establish these two matters at this stage is fatal.

   3.  If the applicant is able to establish both of these two matters, then the plaintiff in the Hong Kong proceedings has to show that he will be deprived of a legitimate personal or juridical advantage if the action is tried in a forum other than Hong Kong.

   4.  If the plaintiff is able to establish this, the court will have to balance the advantages of the alternative forum with the disadvantages that the plaintiff may suffer. Deprivation of one or more personal advantages will not necessarily be fatal to the applicant for the stay if he is able to establish to the court's satisfaction that substantial justice will be done in the available appropriate forum.”

52.  The Court of Appeal in that case (as in the present case) emphasised that the husband was entitled to sue in Hong Kong as of right. Where jurisdiction is founded in the Hong Kong court as of right (as in divorce proceedings like the present case), the party seeking the stay has to establish that there is another available forum which is clearly or distinctly more appropriate than the Hong Kong forum.  This derives from what Lord Goff said in Spiliada (at 477), which has been regularly applied in Hong Kong: e.g. The Kapitan Shvetsov [1997] HKLRD 374 at 377; The Peng Yan [2009] 1 HKLRD 144, at [22].

21.  In addition reference has been made to RI v SSH [2010] 4 HKC 588, where Cheung JA reiterated as follows:

“Matrimonial proceedings are concerned with human beings and the regulation of their lives after the dissolution of their union as husband and wife in terms of custodial and financial provisions. Hence in order to see whether the proceeding has a real and substantial connection to Hong Kong, one must, first of all, ascertain whether at the time of its commencement the parties have substantially conducted their matrimonial life in Hong Kong. Hong Kong being an international commercial city, the identification of this issue is most acute for expatriate families who live in Hong Kong. The relevant considerations are, for example, whether the parties’ matrimonial home is here; what is their past pattern of life, do they regard Hong Kong as their home for the time being even if their life style may indicate that they may not take root in one place for too long a time. Related to the issue are matters such αs the place of work of the spouses: do they choose to work here; even if one of them has to ‘commute’ overseas to work, is Hong Kong still treated as their home base. Likewise, for the children of the family: are they studying here or spending their vacations here even if they are studying abroad.” (emphasis added)

22.  In a nut shell then the court has to determine as follows:

i)  Which is the more appropriate forum? Hong Kong or Morocco?

ii)  Can the husband show that Hong Kong is not a natural or appropriate forum? Or alternatively can he show that Morocco is clearly or distinctly a more appropriate jurisdiction than Hong Kong?

iii)  Will the wife be deprived of a legitimate personal or juridical advantage if the matter is tried in Morocco as opposed to Hong Kong?     

iv)  If so how should the balance be struck?

Which is the more appropriate forum? Hong Kong or Morocco?

Can the husband show that Hong Kong is not a natural or appropriate forum? Or alternatively can he show that Morocco is clearly or distinctly a more appropriate jurisdiction than Hong Kong?

23.  I accept that in the circumstances the husband cannot show that Hong Kong is not a natural or an appropriate forum. It is clear as set out above that the wife has jurisdiction as of right. Thus I also accept that the burden on the husband, who wishes to discharge that burden, is a heavy one. I further accept as set out by Ms Rattigan in her written submission that this was a truly international marriage

32. The parties have lived for the majority of their marriage and conducted their matrimonial life in London (11 years) and Hong Kong (8 years).  Whilst they also spent some time in Paris and London, they have never lived together in Morocco. As W says in her 2^nd Affirmation, whilst she lived in Morocco in her childhood and for a short time after the GFC, she has spent the vast majority of her adult 1ife living outside Morocco.  She lived in Paris for 10 years, London for 11 years and Hong Kong for over 8 years; in total 29 years outside Morocco.

33. Like W, H has also lived most of his adult life outside Morocco.  He is 48 and has spent 31 years living in London, Paris and Hong Kong he has never worked in Morocco [P/77-78/§22].

34. The matrimonial homes have been in Hong Kong, London and Paris. The Children were born in London and have resided in Hong Kong for most of their lives, they will continue to reside here for the foreseeable future.  All of their schooling has been in Hong Kong and they will continue to finish school here. Following RI v SSH, these proceedings cannot have a real and substantial connection with Morocco; the facts unreservedly point towards Hong Kong being clearly and distinctly the more natural and appropriate forum.

I agree.

24.  It is suggested that as the parties are of Moroccan descent and as they hold property in Morocco that it would make more sense for the proceedings to be conducted there. The difficulty with that argument is that the Single Joint Expert’s report makes it clear that the court’s in Morocco will not deal with the parties’ assets on divorce or seek to redistribute those assets in any way. It seems that the court’s in Morocco will only deal with maintenance. The report states inter alia as follows:

Article 49 establishes the distinction between the assets of each spouse.  Each of the two spouses has assets of his or her own and which has no legal relationship with the celebration or the marriage. The spouses thus remain respectively owners or the property belonging to them. The marriage contract does not affect in any way the assets of each spouse, before or after the marriage. There are therefore no common assets or the couple arising from the marriage certificate. The rule of principle is “each one with his or her own assets”, and there are therefore no assets in common to the couple but the couple but two independent assets corresponding to the personal assets of each spouse, except in the case of undivided ownership.

If the spouses have jointly acquired a property, such property belongs to them in the proportions acquired and corresponding to the contributions of each spouse.  The property is subject to the rules of land law and to the rules of indivision. Each spouse is therefore co-owner of the property according to his or her share, in proportion to his or her contribution.

Regarding the holding of a joint bank account, the sums appearing in a joint bank account are assumed to belong half-half to both spouses, even if they are contributed by one of them only.  

The spouses then become co-individuals or co-contracting parties. The matrimonial relationship is not taken into consideration, and does not come into play in the appreciation of the relationship of co-ownership.

On the basis of this principle, the dissolution of the marriage certificate in turn has no impact on the assets which are subject to common law.

25.  In any event the court’s in Hong Kong routinely deal with overseas assets. More importantly given that the husband is paid in Hong Kong it would clearly be more appropriate for a court in this jurisdiction to make orders pertaining to periodical payments for both the wife and the children. The husband’s offer to undertake to make full and frank disclosure in Morocco has to be seen in that light – i.e. there is apparently no legal process within which such disclosure would be required in any event.

26.  In so far as the children are concerned, their habitual residence is in Hong Kong. In such circumstances any orders relating to their care must be made in this jurisdiction. I agree in such circumstances there is no question at all that Hong Kong is clearly and distinctly the more appropriate jurisdiction to deal with children’s matters.

27.  It has been suggested that because the parties were born in Morocco and they hold Moroccan passports and other I.D and that they also chose to enter into a Moroccan marriage, which is also a Muslim marriage that it follows that the divorce should be in Morocco. With respect I do not agree for all of the reasons that are set out above. It does not appear to me that the husband can show that Hong Kong is not a natural or appropriate forum or that Morocco is clearly or distinctly more appropriate. It seems to me therefore that there is no requirement to look at the remainder of the test as the situation is very clear cut. However, in the event that I am wrong in this I shall proceed to consider the remaining two limbs.

Will the wife be deprived of a legitimate personal or juridical advantage if the matter is tried in Morocco as opposed to Hong Kong?     

28.  There is no doubt that the wife is likely to be deprived of legitimate juridical advantages if the matter proceeds in Morocco. In addition to the fact that there is no redistribution of assets following a divorce as set out in paragraph 24 above, there are also other issues including as summarized by Ms Rattigan as follows:

43. The SJE Report highlights numerous disadvantages to W in proceedings in Morocco. In summary, some of the more obvious juridical disadvantages to W as highlighted by the Report will be as follows:

(i)  W is beholden to H for the payment of maintenance as H is regarded as the head of the family (SJE page 4-5).

(ii)  W must observe a period of time before she is allowed to re-marry based on her menstrual cycle (SJE page 5).

(iii)  The Moroccan legal system is based on separation of property “each spouse is the exclusive owner of his or her own income, wages, earnings and rents” (SJE page7).

…

44. Based on the above and looking at the assets as set out in the asset schedule attached, H will retain the vast majority of the assets in this case under Moroccan law as most of the assets are in his sole name. For joint assets, such as the Paris apartment, H in all likelihood stands to retain this as well as he will be seen as the one who has made the greater financial contribution to the same being the family breadwinner.

45. To conclude, W will be severely disadvantaged by divorce proceedings in Morocco.

With respect I agree. 

If so how should the balance be struck?

29.  Although I accept that one man’s advantage is often another man’s disadvantage, in this instance it seems that the potential disadvantages to the wife could be very extreme. Thus the balance must be tipped in favour of the wife.

Conclusion    

30.  In such circumstances the husband’s summons dated the 30 July 2019 shall be dismissed. I can see no reason why costs should not follow the event in the normal way. Thus there shall be an order nisi to be made absolute in 14 day’s time that the Respondent husband shall pay the wife’s costs of and arising out of the summons dated the 30 July 2019 on a party and party basis to be taxed if not agreed. There shall be certificate for counsel.

Further directions

31.  Given this judgment further orders and directions will be necessary. Consequently, it is further ordered as follows:

i)  The First Appointment hearing and Children’s Appointment shall be adjourned to the 13 March 2020 at 9:30 am.

ii)  Both parties do personally attend that hearing.

iii)  The Petitioner and Respondent do file and exchange a Children’s Form (Form J) within 14 days from today. A copy of the same to be provided to the Social Welfare Officer.

iv)  The Petitioner and Respondent do file and exchange a Financial Statement Form E within 28 days from today.

v)  No further affirmations or questionnaires to be filed without leave of the court.

vi)  A social investigation report in English be called for.

vii)  Costs be reserved in so far as it relates to the First Appointment and Children’s Appointment.