Aem v Vfm

CourtCourt of Final Appeal (Hong Kong)
Judgment Date13 Dec 2013
Judgement NumberFAMV31/2013
SubjectMiscellaneous Proceedings (Civil)
FAMV31/2013 AEM v. VFM

FAMV No 31 of 2013

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 31 OF 2013 (CIVIL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM CACV NO 216 OF 2011)

_______________________

BETWEEN

AEM Respondent
and
VFM Applicant

______________________

Appeal Committee: Chief Justice Ma, Mr Justice Tang PJ and Mr Justice Bokhary NPJ

Date of Hearing and Determination: 6 December 2013

Date of Reasons for Determination: 13 December 2013

______________________

REASONS FOR DETERMINATION

______________________

Mr Justice Tang PJ:

1. On 6 December 2013, we dismissed, with costs, the husband’s application for leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal given on 28 January 2013. These are our reasons.

2. The petitioner wife and the respondent husband divorced in 1991 after 20 odd years of marriage. On 27 August 1991, judge Bruno Chan made what he called “a comprehensive and detailed settlement with terms and conditions covering all the parties’ assets and properties as well as their future and longterm needs and obligations and those of the children.” (The 1991 order)

3. There are two children of the marriage but this application does not concern them.

4. The 1991 order has been varied twice. First, on 30 July 1998 and then on 12 May 2006. As a result of the 2006 variation, the husband was ordered to make periodical payments of £50,000 per annum, payable monthly to the wife.

5. By summons dated 19 February 2009 the husband applied for a downward revision or discharge of the periodical payments. At the time, the application was made inter alia, “due to decline in my income/assets.” The husband was employed by a listed company and was able tobuy shares in the company with loans to be repaid by bonus received. It appears from the Form E he filed in May 2009 that since the 2006 variation, the value of the shares had declined to approximately HK$38,000,000 compared with a loan of approximately HK$34 million, as opposed to about $85 million at the time of the 2006 variation. But by the time of the hearing in May 2011, the emphasis had changed to the wife’s change in circumstances, namely, that, as a result of the death of her mother, the wife has inherited more than £610,000 and she was sharing a home with a man. That was because by May 2011 when the application was heard, the value of his shares had more than fully recovered. Judge Bruno Chan allowed the husband’s application and reduced periodical payments to £24,000 for annum subject to the same annual increment dated back to 1 March 2009.

6. The Court of Appeal allowed the wife’s appeal and set aside the order so that the periodical payments remain at £50,000 a year.

7. The husband applied for leave on the ground that questionsof great general or public importance are involved and on the or otherwise ground in that the Court of Appeal’s decision was based on many errors of fact, and the Court of Appeal erred in interfering with the Judge’s exercise of discretion.

8. The power to vary is provided by s 11 of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance Cap 192 (“the Ordinance”), and that s 11(7) provides that “the court shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including any change...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT