離婚附屬濟助訴訟的訟費分配？申請駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：BC v MSH (亦稱 H, MSO) 及其他人 - 法院：區域法院 (District Court) - 法官：陳靜芬區域法院法官 (Her Honour Judge Grace Chan) - 判決日期：2024年3月1日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及一宗離婚附屬濟助 (ancillary relief) 訴訟的訟費裁決。原告妻子與第一答辯人丈夫於2008年結婚，育有三名子女，並於2018年分居。在附屬濟助聆訊中，丈夫根據《婚姻訴訟及財產條例》(Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance) 第17條申請撤銷妻子轉移給其父母（第三及第四答辯人）的款項。丈夫指控妻子轉移約549萬港元，意圖剝奪其分產權。妻子最初否認，但其父在庭上作供時表示會歸還部分款項後，妻子同意將該筆款項計入其資產。此外，丈夫在披露其加密貨幣投資方面存在嚴重延誤和不完整。法庭已就附屬濟助事項作出判決，現需處理訟費問題。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於附屬濟助訴訟（包括第17條申請）的訟費應如何分配。丈夫主張妻子及其父母應支付其訟費，特別是第17條申請的訟費，因妻子遲延承認轉移款項導致不必要的時間和費用。妻子則認為，由於丈夫未完全披露其財務狀況，且雙方在訴訟中均非完全勝訴，故不應作出訟費命令。妻子父母亦主張不應就第17條申請作出訟費命令。 ### 判決理由 法庭在行使酌情權裁定訟費時，考慮了多項因素。首先，法庭認為雙方在附屬濟助訴訟中均非完全勝訴。其次，丈夫在第17條申請中，於審訊第一天才更改其聲稱的轉移款項金額，導致審訊延誤。第三，丈夫在披露其加密貨幣投資方面存在嚴重延誤和不完整，其行為被形容為「捉迷藏」，法庭認為此等訴訟行為應受嚴厲懲罰。法庭強調，在家庭訴訟中，訟費不應以「損益帳」方式細分，而應從整體印象判斷。綜合考慮下，法庭認為不應就附屬濟助事項及第17條申請作出訟費命令。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了《高等法院規則》(Rules of the High Court) 第62號命令第3條及第5(1)條，確立訟費應跟隨訴訟結果，但法庭可酌情作出其他命令。此外，法庭引用了英國案例 Gojkovic v Gojkovic [1992] Fam 40，指出家庭法庭在訟費方面擁有比一般民事法庭更廣泛的酌情權。本地案例 HK v BD, CACV 252/2009 & CACV 71/2010 亦強調家庭訴訟的特殊性，訟費應從「整體印象」判斷，而非細分。L v L [2006] 1 HKFLR 121 則譴責了當事人「捉迷藏」式的披露行為。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭裁定，就附屬濟助事項（包括第17條申請）而言，丈夫與妻子之間不作任何訟費命令。同樣，丈夫與妻子父母之間就第17條申請亦不作任何訟費命令。由於丈夫在訟費申請中敗訴，他須支付妻子及其父母就本次訟費申請所產生的訟費，如未能達成協議則需評定訟費。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申了家庭法庭在處理訟費問題上擁有廣泛的酌情權，並強調在評估訟費時應考慮訴訟的整體情況和各方的行為，而非僅僅關注個別議題的勝敗。特別是，當事人未能充分及時披露財務資料的行為，即使未導致實質性損害，也可能對訟費裁決產生不利影響，法庭會嚴厲譴責此類「捉迷藏」行為。此外，若有足夠資產可供分配，則無必要將第三方加入訴訟以追討款項，此舉可能被視為不必要且非節省訟費的行為。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: BC v MSH, also known as H, MSO and Others - Court: District Court - Judge: Her Honour Judge Grace Chan - Date of Judgment: 1 March 2024 ### Factual Background This case concerns a costs decision arising from ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce. The Petitioner wife and 1st Respondent husband married in 2008, have three children, and separated in 2018. During the ancillary relief hearing, the husband applied under section 17 of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance to set aside sums transferred by the wife to her parents (3rd and 4th Respondents). The husband alleged the wife transferred approximately HK$5.49 million to defeat his claim for ancillary relief. The wife initially denied this, but after her father testified he would return some funds, she agreed to add the sums back to her ledger. The husband also had significant delays and incompleteness in disclosing his cryptocurrency investments. The court had already issued a judgment on the ancillary relief matters, and now addressed the issue of costs. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question in dispute was how costs should be allocated for the ancillary relief proceedings, including the section 17 application. The husband argued that the wife and her parents should pay his costs, particularly for the section 17 application, due to the wife's belated concession causing unnecessary time and expense. The wife contended that no costs order should be made because the husband failed to fully disclose his financial position and neither party was entirely successful. The wife's parents also submitted that no costs order should be made regarding the section 17 application. ### Ratio Decidendi In exercising its discretion on costs, the court considered several factors. Firstly, the court found that neither the husband nor the wife was the overall winner in the ancillary relief proceedings. Secondly, the husband's last-minute change on Day 1 of the trial regarding the amount to be set aside in the section 17 application caused delays. Thirdly, the husband's disclosure of his crypto investments was severely delayed and incomplete, described as a "hide and seek" game, which the court deemed should be "severely penalised in costs." The court emphasized that in family litigation, costs should be judged by an "overall impression" rather than breaking down the litigation into components. Considering all factors, the court decided there should be no order as to costs for the ancillary relief matters and the section 17 application. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The judgment cited Order 62 rule 3 and 5(1) of the Rules of the High Court, establishing that costs generally follow the event but the court has discretion to make other orders. It referred to Gojkovic v Gojkovic [1992] Fam 40, noting that family courts have wider discretion on costs than general civil courts. HK v BD, CACV 252/2009 & CACV 71/2010 was cited for the principle that costs in family matters should be judged by an "overall impression." L v L [2006] 1 HKFLR 121 was mentioned to condemn "hide and seek" disclosure tactics. ### Decision & Orders The court ordered no costs for the ancillary relief matters, including the section 17 application, between the husband and the wife. Similarly, no costs were ordered for the section 17 application between the husband and the wife's parents. As the husband failed in his costs application, he was ordered to bear the costs of the wife and the wife's parents for this specific costs application, to be taxed if not agreed. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the broad discretion of family courts in awarding costs, emphasizing that the overall conduct of parties and the litigation as a whole should be considered, not just success on individual issues. Notably, a party's failure to provide full and timely financial disclosure, even if not leading to a substantive loss, can significantly impact costs orders, with the court condemning "hide and seek" tactics. Furthermore, if sufficient assets exist within the marital pot, joining third parties to recover funds may be deemed unnecessary and not costs-saving. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.