NPYJ v. SMRC

FCMC 9098/2018

[2021] HKFC 241

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES

NUMBER 9098 OF 2018

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

BETWEEN

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

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

D E C I S I O N
(Variation of Order Nisi dated 8 October 2021)

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

1.  By the order nisi made by HHJ Grace Chan on 8 October 2021, the court fixed the target time table for the pre-trial-review and the trial of the ancillary relief proceedings. By the same order nisi, leave was given to the Respondent husband (H) to file and serve his perfected questionnaire as endorsed/ amended by the court as shown in the copy attached thereto, without prejudice that H may take out any application for discovery if so advised.

2.  This Decision is concerned with H’s summons filed on 19 October 2021 for the variation of the order nisi dated 8 October 2021 as follows: -

(1) Leave for H to file and serve his questionnaire unendorsed/ unamended [paragraph (2) of the order nisi];

(2) Time be extended for H to file and serve his answers to the petitioner wife (W)’s questionnaire within 42 days after the above paragraph (1) has been heard and determined [paragraph (1) and (2) of the order nisi];

(3) W to include a statement of truth in her answers to H’s questionnaire [paragraph (3) of the order nisi];

(4) FDR be reinstated [paragraph (8) of the order nisi];

(5) Trial dates be vacated [paragraph (9) of the order nisi];

(6) Costs in the cause of the proceedings.

3.  By the order made by HHJ K.K. Pang on 21 October 2021, it was ordered that, subject to further directions of the court, the court will determine H’s summons filed on 19 October 2021 by way of paper disposal. H and W lodged with the court their submissions on 28 October 2021 and 3 November 2021 respectively.

4.  As to the above paragraphs [2] (1) to (2), my view on H’s questionnaire is as follows: -

Question
1	As per H’s suggestion, words of ‘and provide supporting documents, if any’ are added
2	The request is too wide and is disallowed. Anyway, W’s incomes are shown in her tax returns/ assessments.
3.	In view of that W, her mother and daughter from first marriage are allegedly living together, the first part of Question (3) is reinstated. The 2nd part is too wide and is disallowed.
4	This question is deleted and is replaced by ‘How does W pay her domestic helpers if she claims she is unemployed/ has illiquid assets?’
5	In view of that W has allegedly not provided Form H for about 4 years, question (5) is reinstated.
7 (ii)	The suggested amendment is clerical and is allowed
7 (iv)	H’s request for evidence is allowed and Question 7 (iv) is reinstated.
8(i)/ (ii)	H’s request for evidence is allowed and Question 8(i)/ (ii) is reinstated
9	Directions for valuation of the property were given by the order dated 8 October 2021 so this request is disallowed
10	In view of the alleged change of position, Question 10 is reinstated
11	In view of that H takes issue on the assertion that the car parking spaces were purchased in 2015, Question 11 is reinstated
12	The suggested amendment is clerical and is allowed
14	The request for statements from 36 months before W’s first Form E filed on 22 January 2018 is too wide and is disallowed. For the present purpose, the request for 36 months is reduced to 12 months before W’s first Form E.
16	The request for statements from inception to date is too wide and is disallowed. For the present purpose, the request is limited to statements starting from 12 months before W’s first Form E.
17	What are the specific issues vis-à-vis each transaction that H wants W to explain? As it stands, this is fishing and is disallowed.
18	What are the specific issues vis-à-vis each transaction that H wants W to explain? As it stands, this is fishing and is disallowed.
19 (ii)	The request for statements from 36 months before W’s first Form E filed on 22 January 2018 is too wide and is disallowed. For the present purpose, the request for 36 months is reduced to 12 months before her first Form E.
20	The request for statements from 36 months before W’s first Form E filed on 22 January 2018 is too wide and is disallowed. For the present purpose, the request for 36 months is reduced to 12 months before her first Form E.
21	The request for full run of statements from 36 months before W’s first Form E filed on 22 January 2018 is too wide and is disallowed. For the present purpose, the request for 36 months is reduced to 12 months before her first Form E.
22	What are the specific issues vis-à-vis each transaction that H wants W to explain? As it stands, this is fishing and is disallowed.
23	Deletion of ‘2015’ is reinstated
24	As per H’s suggestion, words of ‘with documentary evidence, if any’ are added
26	The suggested addition of words ‘and its ultimate beneficial owner’ is incongruous with the rest of the question and is disallowed. If the beneficial ownership of the company is in issue, that will be another question. The suggested change of the first ‘2021’ to ‘2020’ is clerical and is allowed
27	The suggested amendment is clerical and is allowed
30	The suggested amendment is clerical and is allowed
35	In view of that W allegedly owns a large number of expensive handbags and other luxury items, Question 35 is reinstated
37	Question 37 is reinstated. I take the view that details of sums owing to W, if any, are required.
39	What are the specific issues vis-à-vis each transaction that H wants W to explain? As it stands, this is fishing and is disallowed.
40	The suggested amendment is clerical and is allowed
41	As per H’s suggestion, words of ‘including the purpose/ reason’ are added
42	What are the specific issues vis-à-vis each transaction that H wants W to explain? As it stands, this is fishing and is disallowed.
44	The request for tax returns/ assessments for seven years prior to 2016 is too wide and is disallowed. For the present purpose, the request for seven years is reduced to two years prior to 2016.
45	The request is too wide and is disallowed. Anyway, W’s incomes are shown in her tax returns/ assessments.
48	The request is too wide and is disallowed.

5.  As to the above paragraph [2] (3), I accept that both parties’ Answer should be verified by statement of truth.

6.  As to the paragraph [2] (4), despite W’s stand that H’s litigation conduct has led to protracted proceedings and increased costs, that he has no intention to settle on any issues and that his request for FDR is a delaying tactic, in view of his professed wish to resolve matters out of court and to save costs, for the present purpose, I am prepared to reinstate the FDR.

7.  As to the above paragraph [2] (5), if there are exceptional circumstances requiring the time tables to be adjusted, a party may apply to the court for variation of the milestone dates in the timetable or further directions. For the present purpose, after lengthy perusal of the court file, however, I take the view that the time tables set out in the order nisi dated 8 October 2021 are achievable by the parties with reasonable diligence. I shall keep the trial dates and make no order as to the above paragraph [2] (5).

8.  In summary, it is ordered that: -

(1) Leave for H to file and serve his perfected questionnaire as re-amended/endorsed (in green) by the court in the copy attached hereto within the next 14 days, i.e. on or before 17 December 2021;

(2) Both parties do file and serve the Answers to the other parties’ questionnaire within 42 days thereafter, i.e. on or before 28 January 2022; such Answers be verified by Statement of Truth;

(3) FDR be reinstated and be fixed to take place on 1 April 2022 at 10:30 am in Court 40, with 1 day reserved; Practice Direction 15.11 be complied with;

(4) There be an order nisi that cost of H’s summons filed on 19 October 2021 for variation of the order nisi dated 8 October 2021 be in the cause of the ancillary relief proceedings.