SFMM v. LKS

FCMC 5552/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES NO. 5552 OF 2009

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

BETWEEN

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1.  This is a trial on the parties’ respective claims for ancillary relief.

2.  For the sake of convenience, I shall call the Petitioner “the wife” and the Respondent “the husband” in this Judgment.

Brief History

3.  The parties married in August 2003.

4.  Within wedlock, a daughter was born who is now aged 5, a kindergarten student, residing with and being looked after by the wife.

5.  On 11 May 2009, the wife issued a petition for divorce based on the behaviour of the husband, which was later amended to one year separation with consent.  It was common ground that the parties separated as from 21 April 2008 and a decree nisi of divorce was granted on 19 October 2010.

6.  As the daughter has all along been residing with the wife, Judge Melloy granted an interim maintenance order of $4,500 per month in favour of the wife for the benefit of the daughter on 12 November 2009.  Later on 11 January 2010, based on the parties’ agreement, the custody of the daughter was formally granted to the wife with defined access to the husband.

7.  As for ancillary relief, the parties failed to reach any agreement in the FDR hearing and so the case was transferred to my court for trial.

The Wife’s Open Offer for Ancillary Relief

8.  At the beginning of the trial, the wife has stated her open offer as follows:

(1)   For the maintenance of the daughter, she would ask for the present level of interim maintenance to continue, namely at a rate of $4,500 per month;

(2)   For her own maintenance, she would ask for a nominal maintenance of $1 per annum; and

(3)   For the husband’s claim for ancillary relief, she offers to pay a lump sum of $200,000 to the husband.

The Husband’s Open Offer for Ancillary Relief

9.  For the husband, his open offer for ancillary relief is as follows:

(1)   For the maintenance of the daughter, he offers a monthly sum of $3,500, i.e. a reduction of $1,000 from the present level of $4,500;

(2)   He objects to pay nominal maintenance to the wife and so he asks for a clean break order; and

(3)   He asks for a lump sum of $340,000 from the wife.

The Difference in the Parties’ Respective Positions

10.  As one can see from the parties’ respective open offers, their differences are not really that big and they are:

(1)   Whether there should be a clean break order;

(2)   Whether there should be a reduction of the daughter’s maintenance from the present level of $4,500 per month to $3,500 per month; and

(3)   Whether the wife should pay $340,000 as contended by the husband, or $200,000 as offered by her.  The difference is a mere figure of $140,000.

The Issues

11.  After hearing the parties in court, I am of the view these are the major issues to be resolved:

(1)   Whether the wife has stolen any money from the husband, in particular the sum of RMB 110,000 from the drawer of the husband;

(2)   Whether the wife owes the husband a sum of $530,000;

(3)   Whether the husband has hidden any family assets; and

(4)   What kind of ancillary relief order to be made after the consideration of all the circumstances of the case.

Whether the Wife has stolen RMB 110,000 from the Husband

12.  During the course of this litigation, it was one of the wife’s allegations that the husband has failed to explain the whereabouts of a sum of RMB 110,000 which was withdrawn from the husband’s Bank of China savings account no. 0************5 (Bundle 3, p.759) on 5 April 2008. 

13.  During cross examination, the husband explained that at the time, he intended to exchange the RMB into Hong Kong currency and so he withdrew the RMB in cash and stored them in the locked drawer inside the bedroom of the matrimonial home.  He said he intended to use the service of a money changer instead of the bank because he would get a more favourable exchange rate.  He said the key to the drawer was placed inside another drawer without a lock.  After the wife had left the matrimonial home on 26 April 2008, he found the cash missing and so it had to be the wife who had stolen the money from him.

14.  This allegation was denied by the wife.  It is the wife’s case that as the husband has failed to explain the whereabouts of this sum of money, adverse inference should be drawn against him and the husband has to account for this sum of money when the court considers the parties’ respective application for ancillary relief.

The Court’s View

15.  In considering this issue, my first observation is that it was a very serious allegation against the wife and the burden is on the husband to prove it was indeed the case.

16.  As far as evidence is concerned, I see that there was no direct evidence to prove such a serious allegation of theft.  On the contrary, I have serious doubts on a number of aspects in the husband’s evidence.

17.  Firstly , the husband’s explanation on why he withdrew practically all the money in that particular account shortly before separation and stored it in the locked drawer at home is hardly convincing.  There was no explanation on why he should want to convert all the RMB into Hong Kong currency.  There was no evidence on what financial advantages could be gained by using the service of an ordinary money changer instead of using the service of the bank.  Even if this court should indeed accept that some financial advantages may be gained, it is doubtful whether that would justify all the troubles, and the associated risk in taking all the cash home. 

18.  More importantly, and as rightly pointed out by the wife’s counsel, during the whole course of the litigation, the husband has never raised this allegation of theft against the wife until the second day of trial during cross examination.  He failed to explain why in all his previous Financial Statements, while he alleged the wife has owed him money in the total sum of $530,000, he has not mentioned this theft of RMB 110,000.  He remained silent even after the wife has queried his withdrawal of the RMB 110,000 from his Bank of China Account.

19.  All in all, I do not find the husband’s explanation credible and is therefore rejected.  I do not accept that the wife has stolen the RMB 110,000 from the husband’s drawer. 

20.  A natural consequence of the above conclusion is that the husband has failed to account for this sum of RMB 110,000 (equivalent to HK$129,800) and therefore, I will infer that he is still in possession of this sum of money.

Whether the Wife owes the Husband $530,000

21.  In the husband’s Form E (Bundle 3, p.740), he stated that the wife did owe him a sum of $530,000 which was made up as follows:

(1)   $80,000 transferred into the wife’s bank account on 23 October 2007;

(2)   $60,000 transferred into the wife’s bank account on 17 April 2007;

(3)   $110,000 transferred into the wife’s bank account on 12 December 2008;

(4)   $110,000 transferred into the wife’s bank account on 14 December 2008; and

(5)   $170,000 being withdrawn by the wife from the joint account.

22.  In her answers to the husband’s questionnaires (Bundle 1, p.22), the wife explained that for items (1), (3) and (4) (i.e. for the total sum of $300,000), she agreed that those sums were paid into her account with Hang Seng Bank.  She said out of those moneys, she has paid a sum of $30,000 into the husband’s account No.3**-1****9-**2 with Hang Seng Bank while the balance of $270,000 has been used for family investment.

23.  I have checked with the relevant entries in the husband’s Hang Seng Bank account (Bundle 1, p. 29), there was indeed such a deposit of $30,000 on 23 October 2007. 

24.  As to the family investment of the $270,000, I do see that the wife has all along been maintaining an investment portfolio in various stocks and the current value of those stocks was $515,448.40 at the time of her filing of her latest Form E.  I tend to accept that she has used that $270,000 in family investments which forms part of the present stockholdings that are currently under the name of the wife.

25.  Overall speaking, I am satisfied with the wife’s explanations of that $300,000.

26.  As to the sum of $60,000 allegedly transferred to the wife on 17 April 2007, the wife said she had no impression of such a transfer.  In this regard, I was not directed to any specific entry in the wife’s bank account and since the burden is on the husband, I am not satisfied that there was indeed such a transfer. Furthermore, even if I should accept there was such a transfer, as there is no suggestion or evidence that the wife is hiding any assets, what is left of that $60,000 must now forms part of the wife’s current assets which will be dealt with in due course under the established legal principles.

27.  As to the sum of $170,000 that the wife has allegedly withdrawn from the parties’ joint account, the wife’s stance is that she has no idea of those withdrawals.  Again, the burden of proof is on the husband which I think he has failed to discharge. Furthermore, even if there has been such withdrawal(s), I am satisfied that it has either been used up in the normal course of events or form part of the wife’s current assets.

28.  In short, I am not satisfied that the wife is now owing the husband the sum of $530,000.

Whether the Husband has hidden any Assets

$700,000 Fixed Deposit

29.  It is common ground that the husband did once hold a fixed deposit of $700,000 with the Hang Seng Bank, which was later deposited into his Hang Seng Bank Account No. 2**-4****6-**8.  However, in July 2008, the said sum of money could no longer be seen in the said account.

30.  In court, the husband explained that some $300,000 odd had been transferred to the wife previously and the balance of about $400,000 was exchanged into RMB for the purpose of investment.  However, the husband is not in a position to adduce any direct evidence to support the said explanation.  Being fair to him, he did mention during re-examination that he had used some money to buy electronic goods in the mainland, but again that was not really supported by any evidence.  Having said that, I acknowledge that it was not seriously challenged by the wife that the husband did at some stages transferred some money to her, albeit not the total sum of $700,000.  Therefore, I am satisfied that at least out of that $700,000, the sum of $300,000 has been transferred to the wife.  As to the balance of $400,000, I have considered the husband’s evidence very carefully, in particular, his evidence in court.  On balance, I am satisfied that the $400,000 has either been mixed with the other family assets or just simply spent.  In short, I am not satisfied that the husband has hidden this sum of $700,000.

RMB 1,560,000 (equivalent to HK$1,841,744) in Guangdong Ll Credit Co-operation Society Account

31.  It is common ground that this account was in the name of the husband and a sum of RMB 1,560,000 was transferred to the bank account of a person called LWC in the mainland on 10 June 2009.

32.  It is the husband’s case that despite the fact that the account was held under his name, the money in it was in fact his employer’s money.  He said he has worked for his employer CWM Limited for 10 odd years.  He was posted to the mainland with the employer’s subsidiary called CWM (Jiangmen) Limited.  Since he was a trusted employee of the company, he was vested with the task of holding the account on trust for his employer with the money therein mainly for the purpose of paying salaries to the mainland employees.  On 10 June 2009, the husband transferred back the money (in the sum of RMB 1,560,000) to LWC who was the director of the company.

33.  The wife said that the husband’s explanation above was unconvincing and therefore, she asked for the claw back of this sum of money into the family pool.

The Court’s View

34.  My view on this matter is rather simple and straight forward.  I have heard the evidence of the husband, I simply do not believe he is such a person who would have such a big sum of money in his own right.  Further still, if he has the intention of hiding his assets from the wife, I just do not believe he would allow such a large sum of money to remain in his bank account until so late as June 2009.  On balance, I accept the money belonged to the company.

HSBC Account No. 4**-1-0****7

35.  The husband was the holder of the HSBC Account No. 4**-1-0****7 and the record showed that the respective sums of $44,000 and $50,000 had been deposited into this account on 19 June 2007 and 30 March 2008.  They were subsequently withdrawn and deposited into the husband’s Jockey Club account.

36.  The husband explained that those were not his moneys but belong to a director of his company WKH.  He said he only brought the money back from the mainland upon his instructions and later put into Mr. WKH’s account in Hong Kong.  There was some confusion on whether the husband had paid the money into his or Mr. WKH’s Hong Kong Jockey Club account, but he later confirmed that the money was indeed paid into Mr. WKH’s Hong Kong Jockey Club account.

37.  The husband’s explanation was not accepted by the wife and so she asked the court to draw the inference that the husband is still holding these 2 sums of money which should be clawed back and put into the family pool.

The Court’s View

38.  It is indisputable that the husband has once paid those 2 sums of money into his HSBC account which sums were subsequently withdrawn.  The issue is whether the husband’s explanation of transferring money from the mainland to Hong Kong on behalf of his boss is acceptable.  I see that both parties have adduced no independent evidence in this regard except their own evidence in court.  After giving some thoughts to the matter, I note that the husband has been a long term employee of the company and so he was trusted in handling company finances.  He was even trusted with over $1 million in company wages.  On balance, I find it more likely that not that he has also assisted his boss in handling their own finances in transferring money back to Hong Kong.  Therefore, it is my ruling that the respective sums of $44,000 and $50,000 did not belong to the husband.

Expenditures on Chow Sang Sang Jewellery

39.  From the husband’s HSBC credit card account, it was shown that the husband has spent a total sum of $18,343 on various occasions in buying gold items at the Chow Sang Sang Jewellery on divers date between October 2010 and January 2011.

40.  The husband explained that those items were purchases he made on behalf of friends and colleagues in the mainland and he had received cash reimbursement from them.

41.  This explanation was not accepted by the wife and so she asked this sum of $18,343 to be counted as part of the husband’s assets.

The court’s View

42.  As I see it, the sum involved here is really small and I see no reason why the husband should lie concerning these transactions.  I am satisfied with the husband’s explanation in this regard.

The Law on Ancillary Relief

43.  The jurisdiction of the Court in granting financial relief for a party is governed by section 4 of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance, Cap 192 (“MPPO”) which provides:

“4. Financial provision for party to a marriage in cases of divorce, etc.

(1) On granting a decree of divorce, a decree of nullity of marriage or a decree of judicial separation or at any time thereafter (whether, in the case of a decree of divorce or of nullity of marriage, before or after the decree is made absolute), the court may, subject to the provisions of section 25(1), make any one or more of the following orders, that is to say-

(a) an order that either party to the marriage shall make to the other such periodical payments and for such term as may be specified in the order;
(b) an order that either party to the marriage shall secure to the other to the satisfaction of the court, such periodical payments and for such term as may be so specified;
(c) an order that either party to the marriage shall pay to the other such lump sum or sums as may be so specified.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1)(c), an order under this section that a party to a marriage shall pay a lump sum to the other party-

(a) may be made for the purpose of enabling that other party to meet any liabilities or expenses reasonably incurred by him or her in maintaining himself or herself or any child of the family before making an application for an order under this section;
(b) may provide for the payment of that sum by instalments of such amount as may be specified in the order and may require the payment of the instalments to be secured to the satisfaction of the court. “

44.  Apart from the granting of financial relief, the court has also power to grant a property transfer order or a sale of property order under ss.6 and 6A of MPPO:

“6. Orders for transfer and settlement of property and for variation of settlement in cases of divorce, etc.

(1)   On granting a decree of divorce, a decree of nullity of marriage or a decree of judicial separation, or at any time thereafter (whether, in the case of a decree of divorce or of nullity of marriage, before or after the decree is made absolute), the court may, subject to the provisions of sections 10 and 25(1), make any one or more of the following orders, that is to say-

(a)   an order that a party to the marriage shall transfer to the other party, to any child of the family or to such person as may be specified in the order for the benefit of such a child such property as may be so specified, being property to which the first-mentioned party is entitled, either in possession or reversion;

---

---

---

(e)   an order for the sale of such property as may be specified in the order, being property in which or in the proceeds of sale of which either or both of the parties to the marriage has or have a beneficial interest, either in possession or reversion, and for the use of the proceeds of such sale…

6A. Orders for sale of property

(1)   Where the court makes an order under section 4, 5 or 6 then, on making that order or at any time after the making of that order, the court may make a further order for the sale of such property as may be specified in the order, being property in which or in the proceeds of sale of which either or both of the parties to the marriage has or have a beneficial interest, either in possession or reversion.

…”

Section 7 Considerations

45.  In deciding on how to exercise its power in this regard, the Court is bound to consider Section 7 of MPPOwhichprovides:

“7. Matters to which court is to have regard in deciding what orders to make under sections 4, 5 and 6

(1) It shall be the duty of the court in deciding whether to exercise its powers under section 4, 6 or 6A in relation to a party to the marriage and, if so, in what manner, to have regard to the conduct of the parties and all the circumstances of the case including the following matters, that is to say-

(a) the income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources which each of the parties to the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;

(b) the financial needs, obligations and responsibilities which each of the parties to the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;

(c) the standard of living enjoyed by the family before the breakdown of the marriage;

(d) the age of each party to the marriage and the duration of the marriage;

(e) any physical or mental disability of either of the parties to the marriage;

(f) the contributions made by each of the parties to the welfare of the family, including any contribution made by looking after the home or caring for the family;

(g) in the case of proceedings for divorce or nullity of marriage, the value to either of the parties to the marriage of any benefit (for example, a pension) which, by reason of the dissolution or annulment of the marriage, that party will lose the chance of acquiring.”

Recent Case Law

46.  In the recent Court of Final Appeal case of LKW v. DD (FACV No 16/2008, Date of Judgment: 12 November 2010), Ribeiro PJ, after considering the recent line of English authorities of White v. White [2001] 1 AC 596; Miller v. Miller and McFarlane v. McFarlane [2006] 2 AC 618, has given a detailed discussion on how a Hong Kong court should approach the issue of ancillary relief.  The following is a brief summary of His Lordship rulings in the case:

(1)   The old Hong Kong Court of Appeal case of C v. C [1990] 2 HKLR 183 should be over ruled (paragraph 22 of the Judgment). In other words, the principle of ‘reasonable requirements” as laid down therein should no longer be followed.

(2)   When the court exercises its discretionary powers under s.7 of the MPPO, guidance may properly be sought from the White v. White line of cases (paragraph 46 of the Judgment).

(3)   Ancillary relief applications are highly fact-sensitive and judges dealing with them must ultimately be guided by s.7 of MPPO and the implicit aim of arriving at a fair financial outcome as between the parties (paragraph 52 of the Judgment).

(4)   In most cases, the available assets are usually not sufficient to cater for the needs of both parties so that the exercise does not progress beyond consideration of their needs (paragraph 54 of the Judgment).

(5)   The principles underpinning the White v. White line of cases can be summarised as follows:

(i) The implicit objective of a s.7 (of MPPO) exercise is to arrive at a fair distribution of the assets as between the parties (paragraph 56 of the Judgment);

(ii) The concept of fairness requires the refutation of any gender or role discrimination (paragraph 57 of the Judgment);

(iii)With a view to eliminating insidious discrimination and promoting fairness, judges should check their tentative views on distribution against a “yardstick of equal division” which should be departed from only for good, articulated reasons (paragraph 58 of the Judgment); and

(iv)The court should not countenance any attempt to engage in costly and often futile retrospective investigations of the failed marriage which tends to deplete the parties’ (and the court’s) resources and to increase antagonism and discourage settlement (paragraph 62 of the Judgment).

(6)   The actual steps to be taken by a court in undertaking the s.7 exercise should be as follows:

(i) The ascertainment of the financial resources of each of the parties calculated as at the date of the hearing (paragraphs 71 to 73 of the Judgment);

(ii) The assessment of the parties’ financial needs.  If the total resources are not enough to meet the parties’ needs, the s.7 exercise should stop here and there is no room to apply any sharing principle (paragraphs 74 to 79 of the Judgment);

(iii)If surplus assets would remain after the parties’ needs have been catered for, the next step should normally be for the court to apply the sharing principle to the parties’ total assets, with a yardstick of equal division as part of that principle.  This means that the total assets should be divided equally between the parties unless there is good reason for departing from an equal division (paragraphs 80 to 82 of the Judgment);

(iv)In considering whether good reasons exist for departing from equal division, the answer is to be found in the terms of s.7 and the implicit objective of a fair distribution of the assets.  Factors like source of the assets, conduct, financial needs, duration of the marriage, contribution to the family and compensation are all material considerations (paragraphs 83 to 130 of the Judgment); and

(v) The weight to be given to each of the factors is a matter of discretion for the court (paragraph 131 of the Judgment).

The Important Facts of this Case

The Wife’s Financial Resources and Needs

47.  The wife is now aged 36.  She works as a clerk with a monthly income of about $20,000.  She is now in possession of assets of about $722,620 which comprises the following items:

	Items	Amount
(1)	Bank accounts	$157,340
(2)	Holdings in stocks, etc.	$515,448
(3)	Interest in insurance	$62,415
(4)	(Liabilities)	(-$12,583) $722,620

48.  The wife is now residing with the daughter and their needs are listed out in the wife’s Form E at the rate of $33,930 per month:

	Items	Amount
General
(1)	Rent	$7,300
(2)	Utilities	$1,000
(3)	Food	$3,000
(4)	Household Expenses	$1,000
(5)	Insurance premia	$2,414
Personal
(6)	Meals out of home	$2,000
(7)	Transport	$1,000
(8)	Clothing/Shoes	$1,500
(9)	Personal Grooming	$2,000
(10)	Entertainment/presents	$1,000
(11)	Holiday	$500
(12)	Medical/dental	$140
(13)	Contribution to parents	$4,000
Children
(14)	School Fees	$1,866
(15)	Extra tuition fees	$1,890
(16)	School books and stationery	$100
(17)	Medical/dental	$280
(18)	Extra Curricular Activities	$500
(19)	Entertainment/presents	$1,000
(20)	Holidays	$500
(21)	Insurance premia	$320
(22)	Lunches and pocket money	$100
(23)	Uniform	$20
	Total:	$33,930

If one should just isolate those expenses on the daughter alone, they amount to $7,076 per month.

The Husband’s Financial Resources and Needs

49.  The husband is now 40 years of age.  He is also a clerk by occupation and he said he earned about $15,600 per month in his latest Form E.  However, according to his latest tax return for the year 09/10, his total annual income should be $248,300.  The husband could not explain this discrepancy in court and therefore, I am prepared to rule that he has an average monthly income of about $20,000.  As to his assets, I am satisfied that the husband is only having the following assets:

	Items	Amount
(1)	Bank accounts	$15,718
(2)	Interest in insurance policies	$53,497
(3)	Assets still holding (para.20 above)	$129,800
(4)	(- Liabilities)	-$1,148
	Total:	$197,867

50.  As to his needs, he stated in his latest Form E that he has the following outgoings:

	Items	Amount
General
(1)	Utilities	$1,500
(2)	Management Fee	$890
(3)	Household Expenses	$300
(4)	Insurance premia	$82
(5)	Others	$280
Personal
(6)	Meals out of home	$2,000
(7)	Transport	$800
(8)	Clothing/Shoes	$1,000
(9)	Personal Grooming	$350
(10)	Entertainment/presents	$1,000
(11)	Holiday	$1,000
(12)	Medical/dental	$300
(13)	Insurance premia	$500
(14)	Contribution to parents	$5,500
(15)	Others	$966
Children
(16)	Entertainment/presents	$500
(17)	Clothing/shoes	$500
(18)	Insurance premia	$732
(19)	Interim Maintenance	$4,500
	Total:	$22,700

For the husband’s expenses on the daughter, they amount to $6,232, but they have already included the interim maintenance of $4,500 that the husband is currently paying.  In other words, apart from the interim maintenance, the husband is now spending about $1,732 on the daughter.

Ancillary Relief

51.  As far as ancillary relief is concerned, I think the first matter to be dealt with is the maintenance of the daughter.  The wife asked for a monthly sum of $4,500 from the husband, which is the amount ordered by Judge Melloy as interim maintenance.  The husband asked for it to be reduced to $3,500 saying that he could not afford the higher sum.

52.  In this regard, I note that the total expenses on the daughter at present is about $8,808 ($7,076 + $1,732 = $8,808).  However, that has not taken into account the wife’s general expenses of $12,300 (not counting the insurance premia of $2,414) that she is paying for both her and the daughter.  If I should count one fourth of that (i.e. about $$3,075) as the share attributed to the daughter, then the total monthly needs of the daughter would become $11,883 ($8,808 + $3,075 = $11,883).  

53.  As the parties’ income are more or less the same, I think it is fair for the husband to bear 50% of the daughter’s expenses, namely the sum of $5,941 ($11,883 x 50% = $5,941).  As the husband is already paying $1,732 on the son, the reasonable amount that he should pay is $4,209($5,941 - $1,732 = $ 4,209).  I would round that figure up to $4,200 for the sake of convenience.

54.  As to the division of the family assets, it is very clear from counsel’s submissions that both parties would not argue against an equal division.  The focus of the trial was in fact mainly centred on the identification of the family assets.  As I have now found that the total family assets are $920,487 ($722,620 + $197,867 = $920,487), 50% of that amount would be $460,243 ($920,487 x ½ = $460,243).  The husband is already holding the assets of $197,867, therefore, in order to achieve an equal division, the wife has to pay the husband a sum of $262,376 ($460,243 - $197,867 = $262,376).  For the sake of convenience, I would round that up to $260,000.

55.  As to the final issue of nominal maintenance, I see that this was a marriage of less than 5 years (August 2003- April 2008) and both parties have quite similar earning ability. They have now divided up the family assets equally and therefore, I am of the view that a clean break order is appropriate under the circumstances of this case.

Orders

56.  Based on the above reasons, I will make the following orders:

(1)   The husband do pay a periodical payment of $4,200 per month to the wife as maintenance for the daughter, payable on the 5^th day of every month starting 5 April 2011 until the daughter reaches the age of 18 years or finishes full time education whichever is the latter.

(2)   The wife do a pay lump sum of $260,000 to the husband within 28 days from the handing down of this Judgment.

Costs

57.  I see that the wife wins in the issue concerning child maintenance and her offer was also closer to the final order on capital division.   I would order the husband to pay the costs of these proceedings including all costs previous reserved, but with no certificate for counsel.  This will be in the form of an order nisi to be made absolute after the expiry of 14 days from the handing down of this Judgment.

S.18 Declaration

58.  Finally, I will also grant a s.18 Declaration.