IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
SUIT NO. 3039 OF 1995
Coram: His Honour Judge de SOUZA in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 6 June 1995
Date of Decision: 6 June 1995
J U D G M E N T
1. These proceedings concern a contested application for orders of ouster and non-molestation injunction. The matter first came before me on 8th of May 1995 by way of an ex parte application by which the wife was seeking to oust the respondent husband from the former matrimonial home and for an order to restrain him from assaulting, molesting, threatening or otherwise interfering with her. I acceded to her request for an ex parte non-molestation injunction on that day, and having issued the order sought, I adjourned the matter of the injunction and the ouster application itself to 24th of May 1995. On the return date, the husband appeared in person as he did today, seeking to oppose the continuation of the injunction and the grant of an ouster order. As there was insufficient time to fully ventilate the conflicting issues on that occasion, the matter was adjourned until today for argument.
2. In support of her application, the wife has filed three affidavits, the last being an affidavit of means and the second one being a supplemental affidavit exhibiting a number of photographs demonstrating the extent of the damage to the former matrimonial home as was described in her first affidavit. I shall refer to those affidavits in greater detail in a moment.
3. The husband has filed on simple affidavit of means on 1st June but it was only made available to the Court this afternoon. In it he briefly sets out his employment with the Citybus Company as a bus driver for which he is remunerated in the monthly sum of $11,000.
4. He says that he supports his parents with whom he resides in the sum of $1,500 each month. He also provides maintenance for his two sons now living with him at his parents' home to the tune of $2,500 per month. The affidavit does not explain his position on the matter of the wife's injunction and ouster applications. He has, however, testified as to why the relief sought by the wife should not be granted. I shall first of all deal with the wife's case for the injunctive relief.
5. In her first affidavit the wife deposes that she is the sole registered legal and beneficial owner of the former matrimonial home. Briefly, she says that she alone had financed its purchase, which incidentally had been completed by a final mortgage payment made very recently.
6. In paragraph 4 of that affidavit, the Court is informed that on 26th of May 1992 the parties became separated shortly after the birth of the younger son. That separation was formalised on 26th of February 1993 when a deed of separation was entered into. The deed provides that custody of the children would vest in the wife and that the parties should live separate and apart. The evidence establishes that they have in fact lived separate and apart with the wife remaining with the two children in the former matrimonial home until matters came to a head as particularised in her first affidavit. It would appear that the wife has experienced considerable difficulty as a result of the husband's pestering her at her place of employment. This is covered in paragraph 6 of the same affidavit. As a result of that, she has had to change employment and became a Jardine's Life Assurance Unit Manager.
7. It is also her case that the respondent had on numerous occasions returned to the matrimonial home, causing her difficulties. He would apparently shout and swear outside the premises, demanding to be let in. This, she says, had caused a degree of emotional distress to her and the children, and has also affected the neighbours. The impact on her had been considerable in that it had caused her constant vomiting and eventual collapse on 30th of March 1995 for which she had to be hospitalised for treatment. The wife then goes on to describe a number of incidents beginning with 21st April 1995 and ending with the incident of 5th May 1995. These appear in paragraphs 13 through 18 of her first affidavit.
8. On 21st April 1995 the respondent arrived at the premises and continuously rang the door bell. He was let in in order to avoid further commotion. The wife says that as soon as he entered, he violently swept things on to the floor causing damage. On this particular occasion, he had pressed her neck with his forearm and a struggle ensued during which she said that she sprained her elbow. She became alarmed and frightened. The respondent apparently left after that stage.
9. On 23rd April 1995, the respondent once again appeared at the premises. On this occasion, he caused further damage to a number of items in the premises. He also removed the elder child, TKT from the flat. This was according to the wife against her express wish. However, the child was returned shortly thereafter on 25th April 1995.
10. Again on 28th April, the respondent returned to the premises. He forced open the metal gate and entered the...