LSP v. CHT

FCMC 3538/2023

[2025] HKFC 54

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES NO. 3538 OF 2023

__________________________________

_________________________________

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

REASONS OF DECISION

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

1.  On 2024.12.13, I heard the substantive argument for 3 hours on 4 interlocutory applications (“Hearing”). Parties withdrew 2 of the interlocutory applications at the end of the Hearing.

2.  I have asked the parties whether they agreed that I provide my brief written reasons of decision in English for another 2 interlocutory applications. Parties agreed. Therefore, I now provide my reasons below.

Brief Family Background

3.  Parties married on 2020.3.15.

4.  Petitioner Husband (H), born on XXXX.X.X, is now 36 years old. According to Form E, he is a XXXXX in XXXXX Department.

5.  Respondent Wife (W), born on XXXX.X.X, is now 37 years old. According to W under her Answer filed on 2024.5.27, she was previously employed under XXXXX Bank as a XXXXX but her employment was terminated in 2023.8. In her updated Form E filed on 2024.11.1, she stated she now works at XXXXX.

6.  Their daughter was born on 2022.6.1, is now 2 years old, studying N class.

7.  Both parties each legally hold a property. It is not disputed that parties bought a Tai Po property (around 381 square feet) in joint names in 2019. Since W was pregnant, parties bought a bigger property in Shatin Property (around 548 square feet) in 2022.1 and lived there when the daughter was born. While the parties bought the Shatin Property, parties have transferred the Tai Po property from joint names to under the sole name of H then W hold the Shatin Property under her sole name.

8.  According to the Social Investigation Report on 2023.10.20, H and the daughter moved out from the Shatin Property on 2023.2.17.

9.  H petitioned for divorce on 2023.3.31. W also petitioned for divorce in mid-April 2023 under FCMC 3937/2023. W confirmed her withdrawal of the Petition under FCMC 3937/2023 in the Hearing therefore the Petition under FCMC 3937/2023 is now dismissed.

10.  H was legally represented at the time of issuance of the Petition. H stopped seeking legal representation on 2023.12.13. W has been all along acting in person.

11.  According to the parties, H is now living at a rented place in Fanling, together with his daughter and his mother. W is living at her family’s property in Kowloon Bay when she does not need to take care of her daughter. W will live in the Shatin Property when the she has access time with the daughter.

Case Background

12.  Before I addressed further the 4 interlocutory applications in the Hearing in detail, I first provide below a summary of the case background.

Child Matters

13.  For child matters, parties took out several interlocutory applications on child matters. The case now proceeds to Case Management Hearing, which will be heard on 2025.2.26.

14.  The most recent child orders ordered by the Court are as follows:

(a)  Both parties have joint custody of the daughter under the Order dated 2024.1.4;

(b)  H has care & control of the daughter under the Order dated 2024.1.4;

(c)  W has defined access under the Order dated 2024.4.25, namely:

(i)  Thursday access from 4:30-7:30pm (this access change to Wednesday when Thursday is a public holiday);

(ii)  Staying weekend access from Friday 3pm to Sunday 6pm on the 1^st and 3^rd week of the month;

(iii)  For 4^th and 5^th week (if situation arises) weekend access from Saturday 9am – 6pm.

15.  Since parties took out lots of interlocutory applications and lodge voluminous documents, on 2024.7.26, PCFJ HHJ I. Wong, by dismissing H’s appeal on a child arrangement order, direct the parties need to seek Court’s directions before applying for any interlocutory applications.

Ancillary Relief (“AR”) matters

16.  For AR matters, parties filed their first round of Form E on 2023.5. Court recently called for an updated Form E. H filed his updated Form E on 2024.10.17 and W filed her updated Form E on 2024.11.1 respectively.

17.  Pausing here, their updated Form E lacks information and supporting evidence, as required by Form E, which I explain more below.

18.  Parties filed questionnaire on each other 1^st Form E and they provided answers on 2024.1.31 and 2024.5.27 respectively. I will comment on their disclosure so far below as well.

19.  There are originally 3 AR interlocutory applications to be argued in the Hearing:

(a)  H’s application of maintenance pending suit (“MPS”) / interim maintenance (“IM”) taken out on 2024.4.12;

(b)  W’s application of MPS / IM taken out on 2024.4.19;

(c)  W’s application to request vacate land registration of Form A on Shatin Property on 2024.5.3.

20.  Given the parties took these 3 interlocutory applications one after another within 3 weeks of time, there are a lot of duplications in filing affirmations. I found a lot of contents are duplicated.

21.  The orders in directing filing of affirmations in these 3 interlocutory applications are under the order dated 2024.4.30 and 2024.5.27. In summary, the relevant affirmations on the 3 applications are as follows:

Applications	H affirmations	W affirmations
H’s MPS/IM	2024.4.12 2024.4.30 (file without leave of the Court) 2024.5.28 (supplemental affirmation in support with leave of the Court) Reply 2024.7.11	2024.6.24
W’s MPS/IM	2024.6.24	2024. 4.19 (MPS) 2024.5.3 (Vacate registration) Reply 2024.7.9
W’s vacate registration

22.  On 2024.12.6, H took out an application to request vacate land registration of Form A on Tai Po Property. Since I consider this application was of a similar nature of W’s application to vacate land registration, I invited the parties on whether they would like to argue on this application in the Hearing as well. Both parties agreed.

23.  However, after 3 hours of argument and upon Court invited parties to make submissions on the principles and issues arose from WHWV v. WECH, CAMP 28/2020 & CACV 547/2020, date of judgment 23 October 2020 and NPYJ v. SMRC, FCMC 9098/2018, date of judgment 4 November 2020, both parties confirmed they would like to apply for withdrawal of their application on vacate land registration. I then granted leave for them to withdrawal their application on vacate land registration.

24.  Therefore, the remaining 2 interlocutory applications are parties’ respective MPS / IM application.

Legal Principles of MPS / IM

25.  I won’t repeat the legal principles of MPS / IM as it was well-established. The starting point starts with the principles laid down in paragraph 37-38 in HJFG v. KCY [2012] 1 HKLRD 95:

(a)  Sole criterion to be applied is “reasonableness”, which is synonymous with “fairness”;

(b)  Important factor to determining fairness is marital standard of living, but not merely to replicate that standard;

(c)  There should be a specific maintenance pending suit budget which excludes capital or long-term expenditure, budget examined critically to exclude forensic exaggeration;

(d)  Robust assumptions on payer’s ability to pay, court is not confined to mere say-so of the payer;

(e)  Not a detailed investigation, conducted on a broad-brush basis.

26.  In paragraph 34 in HJFG v. KCY [2012] 1 HKLRD 95, Court of Appeal stated clearly that the court has no jurisdiction to make orders which for all practical purposes result in a form of pre-trial capital rebalancing. The long-established approach is to look at “immediate and reasonable needs”.

H’s MPS / IM application

H’s position

27.  On 2024.4.12, H’s application on MPS / IM are as follows:

Interim maintenance: $9,350 per month ($11,850 per month starting from 2024.9, when daughter is studying N class).

28.  According to H’s supporting affidavit on 2024.4.12, the expenses are as follows:

General

Rent	$11,000
Mortgage (Taipo Property)	$16,313.50
Utilities	$3,000
Management	$1,598
Food	$5,000
Miscellenaous Expenses	$2,000
Maid	$6,700
Others (internet)	$150
Property Tax on Taipo Property	$2,500
Sub-total	$48,261.50

Personal

Food outside	$3,000
Transportation	$1,000
Clothing	$1,000
Personal	$500
Entertainment	$2,000
Holidays	$1,000
Medical	$1,000
Tax	$8,333
Insurance	$5,000
Parents	$12,000
Others (telephone and gym)	$260
Sub-total	$35,093

Child

Playgroup	$1,000
Medical	$1,000
Entertainment, Holidays	$3,000
Clothing	$2,000
Milk powder and other food	$2,000
Child caring fees	$6,700
Food and drinks	$3,000
Sub-total	$18,700

29.  H is alleging each month’s expenses amount to $102,054.50, but his monthly salary is only around $50,000 plus.

30.  However, on 2024.5.28, H raised the amount of MPS / IM to a sum of $55,100 ($60,100 from 2024.9 onwards).

31.  H confirmed in the Hearing that this amount was for IM and he was not asking for any MPS.

32.  The monthly expenses of H was raised to $120,000.50 in H’s affirmation on 2024.5.28, the increment is on several items on child part:

Child

	2024.4.12 H affirm	2024.5.28 H affirm
Playgroup	$1,000	$1,000
Medical	$1,000	$1,000
Entertainment, Holidays	$3,000	$8,000
Clothing	$2,000	$2,000
Milk powder and other food	$2,000	$15,000 (home food, food outside, diapers, healthy food, supplement)
Child caring fees	$6,700	$6,700
Food and drinks	$3,000	$3,000
Sub-total	$18,700	$36,700

33.  H further increased the child expenses to $43,922 per month in his updated Form E:

Child

	2024.4.12 H affirm	2024.5.28 H affirm	H’s updated Form E
Playgroup	$1,000	$1,000	$3,792
Tuition			$1,000
School books and stationery			$1,000
Medical	$1,000	$1,000	$1,000
ECA			$1,000
Entertainment, Holidays	$3,000	$8,000	$4,000 + $4,000 = $8,000
Clothing	$2,000	$2,000	$2,000
Other transport			$500
Milk powder and other food	$2,000	$15,000 (home food, food outside, diapers, healthy food, supplement)	$15,000
Child caring fees	$6,700	$6,700	$6,700
Uniform			$1,000
Food and drinks	$3,000	$3,000
Books and education expenses			3,000
Sub-total	$18,700	$36,700	$43,992

Marital Standard of Living

34.  I have queried the marital standard of living of the parties before separation.

35.  According to H’s 1^st Form E, when talked about marital standard of living under section 5.3 of H’s 1^st Form E, H stated that the parties, daughter and H’s mother lived in Shatin Property after the daughter was born. H further stated that although parties had sufficient and stable income, parties lived a relatively frugal and simple life. Parties did not go travel due to covid and H had a gym membership and would go to gym for exercising.

36.  H stated in the Hearing that after the daughter was born and shortly before H and daughter moved out from Shatin Property, H paid all family expenses and Tai Po Property Mortgage plus miscellaneous expenses while W paid for the mortgage of Shatin Property. As to the management fees plus rates and government rent of the Shatin Property, parties shared the expenses before H moved out and H did not pay for any these expenses after he moved out on 2023.2.17.

37.  As to W, W stated in her 1^st Form E that parties would consume fresh foods and wear clothing with brands and with good quality. Daughter consumed famous brand milk powder and diapers. W would buy different kind of games and different developmental materials for the development of the daughter. In relation to food, W said parties would invite friends to home to have joyous meetings and would also visit other friends’ home for enjoying feasts. Parties would also go to buffet and high class restaurants for dining from time to time. Parties would also go to Ocean Park and enjoyed water skiing from time to time. In relation to traveling trips, W said parties have been to Europe and other Asian Countries before pandemic and have been to mainland or Macau once or twice every month.

38.  Although both parties described their marital standard quite differently, however, from where they chose to live and from looking at their bank statements and credit card statements, I do not consider they were spendthrift and spent much on any luxurious product and entertainment activities. In fact, I consider the evidence shows they are living in a more frugal and simple life.

Broad brush assessment on H’s income / rental

39.  According to H’s updated Form E, his salary is $62,140. H said he is now under point 29 of the Master Pay Scale and the most updated salary should be around $66,000.

40.  H has not provided any documents to support his salary in his updated Form E. Upon checking the most updated Master Pay Scale amount under Civil Service Bureau website, the salary amount for point 29 should be $65,875 as at 2024.3.31 and the salary amount should be $67,850 with effective from 2024.4.1.

41.  Upon questioning by the Court on whether H received other allowance, H pointed out he is currently receiving a housing allowance for around $6,000 per month. This amount has not been disclosed in his updated Form E.

42.  According to H’s 1^st Form E, he received rental for his Tai Po Property at a sum of $15,500/month. H said in his 1^st Form E that the rental will be ended in 2023.7. In his updated Form E, there is no such rental income under 3.6 of his updated Form E. Again, upon questioning by the Court on the current rental status of the Tai Po Property, H raised that he found a tenant for the Tai Po Property in around 2023.7-8 and the tenant is currently paying a rent of $16,000 per month.

43.  Therefore, H has a stable income /resource from his salary, housing allowance and rental income of $89,850 per month (i.e. $67,850 + $6,000 + $16,000).

Broad brush assessment on H’s expenses

44.  I won’t go through my assessment on every item in detail, but it does not mean I ignored all the submissions made by the parties. I have considered all the submissions of the parties in reaching this assessment.

45.  My broad brush assessment on H’s general expenses are similar to H’s affirmation:-

General

	H’s affirm	Court assessment
Rent	$11,000	$11,000
Mortgage (Taipo Property)	$16,313.50	$16,313.50
Utilities	$3,000	$2,000
Management	$1,598	$1,598
Food	$5,000	$4,000
Miscellenaous Expenses	$2,000	$1,000
Maid	$6,700	$6,200
Others (internet)	$150	$150
Property Tax on Tai Po Property	$2,500	$2,500
Sub-total	$48,261.50	$44,761.50

46.  In relation to personal expenses, I made a bigger deduction on contribution to parents. H stated that his father is around 74 years old and his mother is around 67 years old. H’s parents live with H and the daughter and need to take care of the daughter. I consider while H hired a maid from 2024.11 onwards, such contribution could be reduced in an interim maintenance budgeting:-

Personal

	H’s affirm	Court assessment
Food outside	$3,000	$2,000
Transportation	$1,000	$1,000
Clothing	$1,000	$500
Personal	$500	$500
Entertainment	$2,000	$1,000
Holidays	$1,000	$1,000
Medical	$1,000	$500
Tax	$8,333	$8,333
Insurance	$5,000	$5,000
Parents	$12,000	$2,000
Others (telephone and gym)	$260	$260
Sub-total	$35,093	$22,093

47.  For child expenses, I consider the amount is highly exaggerated on the following items:

(a)  Milk powder and other food – I consider $15,000 per month is highly exaggerated and there is no information and evidence showing such spending in this part. I would only $1,000 in this part.

(b)  Entertainment, Holidays – I consider $8,000 per month again are highly exaggerated and there is again no evidence showing such spending in this part. I would only allow $1,000 in this part.

(c)  Child caring fees – H acknowledged the $6,700 mentioned are maid fees and this part has been already put under the general expenses item.

(d)  Books and education expenses – H stated an extra $3,000 per month were spent for extra books for daughter. However, there is no evidence showing such spending and I would not allow any amount for this item at this stage.

(e)  In general, I am aware that the daughter is now going to school for nearly whole day (8am – 4:30pm, or can extend to 6pm as stated by H). I consider her expenses are limited. My assessment on child expenses are as follows:

Child

	2024.4.12 H affirm	2024.5.28 H affirm	H’s updated Form E	Court assessment
Playgroup	$1,000	$1,000	$3,792	$3,792
Tuition			$1,000	$0
School books and stationery			$1,000	$300
Medical	$1,000	$1,000	$1,000	$500
ECA			$1,000	$0
Entertainment, Holidays	$3,000	$8,000	$4,000 + $4,000 = $8,000	$1,000
Clothing	$2,000	$2,000	$2,000	$500
Other transport			$500	$100
Milk powder and other food	$2,000	$15,000 (home food, food outside, diapers, healthy food, supplement)	$15,000	$1,000
Child caring fees	$6,700	$6,700	$6,700	$0
Uniform			$1,000	$0
Food and drinks	$3,000	$3,000		$0
Books and education expenses			$3,000	$0
Sub-total	$18,700	$36,700	$43,992	$7,192

48.  Court’s assessment on H’s expenses is $44,761.50 + $22,093 + $7,192 = $74,046.50.

Summary

49.  I consider for the interim stage, H has more than sufficient resources to cover his expenses, therefore H’s application of MPS / IM fails.

W’s MPS / IM application

W’s Position

50.  According to 2024.4.19, W asked for the following MPS / IM:

(a)  Expenses for Shatin Property - $26,100;

(b)  Expenses for child under W’s care - $19,000;

(c)  Expenses of W - $10,000

Total: $55,100.

51.  In addition W asked for H paid to W a sum of $480,000 (up to 2024.4), being half of the mortgage and other property expenses of the Shatin Property and half of the rental received under the Tai Po Property.

52.  W’s breakdown of the expenses under her affirmation on 2024.4.19 are as follows:

Shatin Property Expenses

Mortgage	$24,000
Management fees	$1,100
Rates and Government rent	$1,000
Sub-total:	$26,100

Child expenses

Food outside and milk powder etc	$8,000
Transportation	$2,000
Clothing	$3,000
Holidays	$5,000
Medical	$500
Entertainment	$500
Sub-total:	$19,000

53.  For W’s personal expenses, she stated her expenses were $38,200 (including general expenses of $22,000 and personal expenses of $36,200).

54.  On 2024.7.9, W raised the figure of MPS / IM to $70,000 in her reply affirmation on W’s MPS application, which breakdown are as follows:

(a)  Child maintenance (i.e. IM) - $60,000;

(b)  W’s related expenses - $10,000.

55.  In W’s updated Form E, the breakdown of her expenses are:

General

Food	$20,000
Sub-total	$20,000

Personal

Food outside	$10,000
Transportation	$5,000
Clothing	$2,000
Personal	$500
Entertainment	$500
Holidays	$3,000
Tax	$10,000
Insurance	$5,700
Parents	$30,000
Sub-total:	$66,700

Child

Medical	$500
ECA	$2,000
Entertainment	$3,500
Holidays	$4,000
Clothing	$3,000
Other transport	$2,500
Child caring fees	$7,000
Food / milk powder	$10,000
Diapers	$1,000
Shatin Property expenses	$26,000
Books	$500
Sub-total:	$60,000

Sub-total: $146,700

Broad brush assessment on W’s income

56.  Court noted W said she was terminated by her previous employer in 2023.8. She earned around $100,000 per month in XXXXX Bank.

57.  In her updated Form E, she stated she now worked in XXXXX and earned around $60,000 per month.

58.  When I enquired further on W’s professional qualifications, W stated she is a certified public accountant. She started his current job in the end of 2024.2. Upon further enquiry during the Hearing, W said she currently received around $65,000 per month and the current is a 2-year contract and she may receive discretionary bonus upon the completion of the 2 year contract term. When I enquired why W could not provide further job details, including employment contract, salary statement etc, W insisted that she could not provide new details of this new job position and could not provide bank records to prove her earnings.

59.  Without any further information from W, I consider W’s current salary is at least $65,000 per month.

Broad brush assessment on W’s expenses

60.  Same as the assessment on H’s expenses, I would explain assessment on every item in detail. However, I have not ignored the parties’ submissions and I have considered all submissions made by the parties in reaching this assessment.

61.  For W’s general expenses, I consider the item on food is exaggerated. There is no evidence showing such spending. My broad brush assessment is as follows:

General

	W’s updated Form E	Court assessment
Food	$20,000	$4,000
Sub-total	$20,000	$4,000

62.  For W’s personal expenses, I made a major reduction on the following items:

(a)  Food outside – there is no evidence supporting $10,000 food outside. I would only allow $3,000 under this item.

(b)  Transportation – there is no evidence showing W spent $5,000 on transportation. I would only allow $1,000 under this item.

(c)  Tax – W’s earnings were reduced from around $100,000 to $60,000 per month and she has not been working for a few months from 2023.8 to 2024.2. I made a rough assessment of $5,000 per month to reflect her potential tax liability in the coming year.

(d)  Parents – W stated $30,000 needs to be paid to her parents. Her father is around 70 years old and her mother is around 68 years old. I did not find from evidence of such payment and I consider this amount of contribution should be reduced to $2,000 in the budgeting.

Personal

	W’s updated Form E	Court assessment
Food outside	$10,000	$3,000
Transportation	$5,000	$1,000
Clothing	$2,000	$500
Personal	$500	$500
Entertainment	$500	$500
Holidays	$3,000	$1,000
Tax	$10,000	$5,000
Insurance	$5,700	$5,700
Parents	$30,000	$2,000
Sub-total:	$66,700	$19,200

63.  For W’s estimation of child expenses, I remind myself W’s current access time with the daughter involves one weekday evening access, 2 weekend staying access and 1 weekend day access if that month is a “4-week schedule”. The expenses incurred during her access time should be limited:

(a)  ECA – W stated she enrolled English and Dancing class for daughter currently and she did not mention such expenses to H. Without any evidence to support such expenses, I estimate a sum of $1,000 under this item.

(b)  Entertainment, Holidays, Clothing – W overall stated 10,500 per month were spent on these items on daughter. I consider this not reasonable. I consider overall $1,500 per month at a reasonable amount.

(c)  Caring fees – W said she hired a part-time helper around $200 per hour. I consider since W would spend time with daughter during her access time, I do not think it is necessary to incur part-time helper expenses. I would not give any allowance under this item.

(d)  Food / milk powder - $10,000 claimed by W is totally exaggerated. I would only allow $1,000 per month.

(e)  Shatin Property expenses – I would explain more in detail in the next paragraph.

Child

	W’s updated Form E	Court assessment
Medical	$500	$250
ECA	$2,000	$1,000
Entertainment	$3,500	$1,000
Holidays	$4,000	$250
Clothing	$3,000	$250
Other transport	$2,500	$100
Child caring fees	$7,000	$0
Food / milk powder	$10,000	$1,000
Diapers	$1,000	$250
Shatin Property expenses*	$26,000	*
Books	$500	$0
Sub-total:	$60,000	$4,100

*deal with it separately

64.  For Shatin Property Expenses, I consider it should not be under daughter’s expenses, it should be under general expenses. My assessment are as follows:

	W’s affirm	Court assessment
Mortgage	$24,000	$23,426.62
Management fees	$1,100	$1,100
Rates and Government rent	$1,000	$1,000
Sub-total:	$26,100	$25,526.62

65.  In summary, the expenses of W are $4,000 + $19,200 + $4,100 + $25,526.62 = $52,826.62.

Summary

66.  I consider W’s income is also well-covered on all of her expenses, therefore, W’s MPS / IM application on $60,000 child maintenance and $10,000 W’s related expenses fails.

67.  In relation to the alleged repayment of $480,000 by H, being half of the mortgage and property expenses paid by W on the Shatin Property and half of the rental proceeds received by H on the Tai Po Property, I would not have any hesitation to dismiss this part of application as well as this part is not related to the “immediate and reasonable needs” and this would create a form of pre-trial capital balancing. Whether this part would affect any departure of equalization will be dealt with at the trial of ancillary relief proceedings.

Non full and frank disclosure

68.  In L v. L [2006] 1 HKFLR 121, where Hon Lam J (as he then was) gave heavy criticism over the manner in which the wife in that case had disclosed her financial situation at paragraph 197 and 198. I will not repeat the principles here. In summary, parties have a positive duty to give disclosure.

Answers on both parties’ Questionnaire

69.  I have read Parties’ Answers on both parties Questionnaire. I noted both parties fail to answer the other parties’ material information, say:

(a)  W failed to answer H the purpose of W’s withdrawal of $999,999 to ASK on 2022.12.19 in BOC account;

(b)  H failed to answer W the purpose of H’s withdrawal of $450,000 and $490,763 on 2023.2 in Hang Seng Account.

70.  In the Hearing, both parties could not give any answer on the withdrawal of funds and only stated they need to check further.

71.  In summary, the Court at this stage have no evidence on where the money went and for what purpose. Parties have a positive duty to give disclosure where these money went to.

72.  Parties need to be aware that the Court may draw adverse inferences on their financial positions with the parties’ lack of full and frank disclosure on where the money has gone to.  

Parties’ updated Form E

73.  H filed his 1^st Form E on 2023.5. His updated Form E is filed on 2024.10. However, his updated Form E did not provide any records to support and many items have missed out:

(a)  Details on his stocks, insurance and MPF are missing in his Form E;

(b)  H did not mention whether the Tai Po Property was rented out or not;

(c)  H did not provide records for his salary tax assessment and property tax assessment.

74.  Further, Court realized that the amount in his bank accounts has been significant reduced since the 1^st Form E:

(a)  Standard Chartered Bank – from $202,443 to $1,985;

(b)  Hang Seng Bank – from $902,471 to $25,210

75.  The reduction of the amount is around $1.07m in around 18 months (i.e. around $59,444 per month).

76.  Similar to H, W filed his 1^st Form E on 2023.5 and her updated Form E is filed on 2024.11. However, her updated Form E did not provide much updated records:

(a)  W only provided one latest monthly bank statement of ICBC account;

(b)  W did not provide any records on her BOC accounts since her 1^st Form E;

(c)  W did not provide any details of her new job position, in particular, when did she start her new job and all monthly salary records.

77.  Same as H, Court realized W’s amount in her bank accounts were substantially reduced:

(a)  ICBC account – from $814,305 to $689.

78.  The reduction of around $0.8m in around 18 months (i.e. $44,444 per month).

79.  Court is concerned with why H has substantially reduced around $1m and why W has substantially reduced around $0.8m in the past 18 months, by comparing each other 1^st and updated Form E.

80.  In summary, up to date, each party has about $1.9 m of assets, which the Court does not have full information on where the money went to.

81.  Further, I would also like to point out that, from a quick glimpse and comparison of parties’ Form E filed in 2023.5 and the recent Form E filed in 2024.10 and 2024.11 respectively, the Court can see parties’ assets have been depleted for a substantial amount in various ways, i.e. the dropping of the property price, serious reduction of cash flow etc. It is high time for the parties to reflect the negative impact caused by the parties in this divorce application.

Conclusion

82.  All 2 MPS / IM applications taken out by the parties are dismissed.

83.  Suffice it to say that I have considered all the submissions and relevant documents in reaching this decision, I do not intend to repeat each and every submission advanced by the parties in this brief reasons of decision.

84.  Since both parties act in person, I order no order as to costs for these 2 applications (including all costs reserved).

Order

85.  The order will be as follows:

(1)  Petitioner’s Summons on 12 April 2024 be dismissed;

(2)  Respondent’s Summons on 19 April 2024 be dismissed;

(3)  Costs nisi that costs of Petitioner’s Summons on 12 April 2024 and Respondent’s Summons on 19 April 2024 be no order as to costs. Unless any party applies to vary the above costs order nisi within 14 days hereof, the costs order shall become order absolute.

Postscript

86.  Once again, according to my reading of all parties’ applications, it seems parties are taking approach of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” in all of their interlocutory applications. Parties are encouraged to seek independent legal advice on the way forward.