Cy v Pykc

Court:Family Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement Number:FCMP31/2005
Judgment Date:25 Nov 2005
FCMP000031/2005 CY v. PYKC

FCMP 31 of 2005




NUMBER 31 OF 2005



  CY Applicant
(Judgment Creditor)
  PYKC Respondent
(Judgment Debtor)


Coram : Her Honour Judge Chu in Chambers

Date of Hearing : 17 November 2005

Date of Handing Down of Judgment : 25 November 2005




1. The preliminary issue in this Judgment Summons is whether in proceedings for enforcement of a registered foreign maintenance order, leave is required under s. 12 of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance Cap. 192 (“MPPO”) for the enforcement of arrears due more than 12 months before proceedings for enforcement are begun.

2. The Applicant / Judgment Creditor is the former wife of the Respondent / Judgment Debtor and she is now residing in Ontario, Canada with the child of the family, now 19. The Respondent resides in Hong Kong.

3. On 26th February 1991, the Applicant obtained a maintenance order from the Ontario Court (General Division) of Canada (“Maintenance Order”) which provides that the Respondent should pay to her for the child of the marriage the amount of Can$1,000 per month, with effect from 8th January 1991 as interim child support.

4. The payments became more sporadic since about late 1999. Subsequently the Maintenance Order was registered in Hong Kong on 30th August 2000 under s. 7 of the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance Cap 188 (“MREO”).

5. On 14th March 2005, the Applicant, through the Department of Justice of Hong Kong, applied for leave to issue a Judgment Summons.

6. Leave was granted and on 22nd March 2005, a Judgment Summons was duly issued against the Respondent for arrears totalling CAN$42,100 or about HK$221,719.5 as at April 2004.

7. Mr. Enzo Chow, of the Department of Justice, who appeared on behalf of the Applicant seeks to argue as a preliminary issue as to whether leave is required under s. 12 of MPPO to enforce arrears which became due more than 12 months before the Judgment Summons was issued. He submits that leave should not be required for, inter alia, the following reasons :

(i) the meaning of “maintenance order” under s. 2 of MREO is very wide, and is not limited to orders granted in matrimonial proceedings, and refers to order for periodical payment of sums of money towards maintenance of any person, and includes an affiliation order.

(ii) S. 9 (1) of MREO is only a “deeming provision” and shall not be taken as imperative for the District Court to follow all the procedural requirements under the relevant legislation, unless a particular requirement is necessary, appropriate and equitable.

(iii) S. 12 of MPPO only applies to certain orders made under that ordinance.

8. Mr Chow further submits that this court should not apply the so called “12 month rule”, namely the practice of not enforcing arrears due more than 12 months before enforcement proceedings are begun, in registered foreign maintenance orders.

9. The Respondent was acting in person. From what he said, I understood his position to be that the “12 month rule” should be invoked.

10. I would, first of all deal with the application of s. 12 of MPPO.


11. Under s. 2 of MREO, “maintenance order” means any of the following : -

“(a) an order (including an affiliation order or order consequent upon an affiliation order) which provides for the periodical payment of sums of money towards the maintenance of any person, being a person whom the person liable to make payments under the order is, according to the law applied in the place where the order was made, liable to maintain; and

(b) an affiliation order or order...

To continue reading

Request your trial