Bm Formerly Known As L, Kmm v N, Dg

CourtFamily Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement NumberFCMC595/2014
Subject MatterMatrimonial Causes
FCMC595A/2014 BM formerly known as L, KMM v. N, DG

FCMC 595 / 2014

[2019] HKFC 35




NUMBER 595 OF 2014


BM formerly known as L, KMM Petitioner
N, DG Respondent


Coram: Her Honour Judge Sharon D. Melloy in Chambers (Not open to public)

Date of written submissions on costs: 28 December 2018

Date of receipt of joint bundle of relevant documents: 16 January 2019

Date of Ruling (paper disposal): 11 February 2019


(Variation of order nisi on costs)



1. On the 19 September 2018 I handed down a judgment on the Respondent father’s application to vary the maintenance provision for the child of the family, a little girl known as S. S is 7 years of age having been born on the XX October 2011.

2. In the judgment I reduced the maintenance payable by the father to the mother for S, from HK$28,000 per month to HK$16,000 per month. I also released the father from his undertaking to pay for agreed extra-curricular activities (ECA’s). I did not release him from his undertaking to pay for S’s school fees. This order was also backdated to the 1 June 2017 – i.e. the month after the mother stopped paying any form of rent and shortly after the father issued his summons.

3. In so far as the costs are concerned I said as follows:


35. Given that neither party has been wholly successful, and notwithstanding the difficulties with some of the mother’s evidence, I shall make an order nisi to be made absolute in 14 days time that there shall be no order as to costs.

4. The “difficulties” with some of the mother’s evidence included the fact that the mother had been less than honest about certain relevant facts including how much she was paying for rent post separation and when she started to pay nothing at all. There were also issues surrounding the date when she started to formally cohabit with Mr B, the wife’s now husband. I found that the mother’s evidence in relation to all of these matters was “somewhat elusive”. I added

9. Similarly her evidence concerning her own income and earning capacity was less than straightforward. Despite denying categorically that she was earning anything at all in her affirmation of the 21 March 2017 – or that she had an earning capacity, she subsequently admitted to earning HK$15,000 per month.

5. In other words I found that the mother had lied on oath. In addition, her presentation of the evidence on S’s direct expenses in particular was chaotic, with three different sets of figures being produced – some at very short notice (see paragraph 21 of the judgment).

6. There were also issues with respect to the wife’s...

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