FCMC 12188 / 2006

[2024] HKFC 207

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES

NO. 12188 OF 2006

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

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

__________________

J U D G M E N T
( Appeal against Master’s decisions – Charging Order Absolute )

__________________

1. This is an appeal against a master’s decision to grant a charging order absolute against the respondent’s property at Mei Foo Sun Chuen (“ the respondent’s property ”).

Background

2. The petitioner was the wife and the respondent the husband in these matrimonial proceedings. Since the parties have long ceased to be married, I shall address them as the petitioner and the respondent in this Judgment.

3. The parties married in July 1992. This was a childless marriage.

4. In September 2006, the petitioner petitioned for divorce on the ground of two years separation.

5. At all material times (before the divorce and up to now) the petitioner has been living in Canada and the respondent has been living in Hong Kong.

6. The divorce proceedings were uneventful and went smoothly. The parties soon arrived at a settlement over the financial matters as a result of which a consent summons dated 27 January 2007 was filed to court for endorsement.

7. Decree nisi was granted on 28 March 2007. On the same day, a consent order on the terms of the consent summons was granted. I shall refer to this consent order as “ the 2007 Consent Order ”.

8. The decree nisi was made absolute on 22 June 2007.

The 2007 Consent Order

9. The essential terms of the 2007 Consent Order were that the respondent was to transfer two properties to the petitioner plus a periodical maintenance of CAD 8,000 per month.

10. The first property, which I refer to as “ the Belcher Property ” in this Judgment, was owned by a Company that presumably was controlled by the respondent. The respondent undertook to procure his company to transfer the Belcher Property to the petitioner free of encumbrances on or before 31 December 2008, failing which the respondent was to pay her $8,500,000 forthwith.

11. The second property was in the name of the respondent. I shall refer to this property as “ the Broadway Property ”. The respondent was to transfer the Broadway Property to the petitioner free of encumbrances no later than 60 days upon the making of the decree absolute.

12. Despite containing a periodical maintenance order, the 2007 Consent Order – following the consent summons - was expressed to be for full and final settlement between the parties.

The Petitioner’s Charging Order Proceeding

13. Then more than 16 years later in December 2023, the parties appeared in court again. This time it was on the petitioner’s application for a cha