離婚上訴是否須支付訟費保證金？申請駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：ZJW v SY - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：林文瀚副庭長及關淑馨上訴法庭法官 - 判決日期：2017年6月12日 ### 案情摘要 本案源於一宗離婚呈請。妻子（呈請人）在香港提交離婚呈請，但原審法官裁定香港法院對此案沒有司法管轄權，因此駁回呈請。妻子獲准上訴。丈夫（答辯人）隨後向上訴法庭申請要求妻子為上訴支付訟費保證金 (security for costs)，理由是妻子並非香港常居居民，且可能經濟拮据，在香港境外執行訟費命令將面臨困難和額外開支。妻子反駁指，家庭大部分資產由丈夫控制，且根據中國內地法律，離婚時資產原則上應均等分配，她應得的份額足以支付任何訟費命令。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議是，在離婚呈請被駁回後，上訴法庭是否應命令上訴人（妻子）為其上訴支付訟費保證金。丈夫主張妻子非香港居民且可能經濟拮据，執行訟費命令困難。妻子則認為家庭資產龐大且主要由丈夫控制，其在內地離婚訴訟中可獲分配的資產足以支付訟費，故無需提供保證金。 ### 判決理由 法庭在審理訟費保證金申請時，確認丈夫已證明存在特殊情況（即妻子非香港居民，在內地執行訟費命令將有額外延誤和開支）。然而，法庭認為妻子已成功證明存在充分的抗衡因素 (countervailing factor)，足以拒絕該申請。法庭考慮到家庭資產規模龐大，且大部分由丈夫控制，而根據中國內地法律，離婚時資產原則上應均等分配。法庭裁定，妻子預期將從丈夫處獲得的資產分配款項，將遠超可能判給丈夫的訟費，因此丈夫的訟費權益已得到充分保障，無需額外保證金。 ### 引用案例與條文 Chung Kau v Hong Kong Housing Authority & Ors [2004] 2 HKLRD 650，該案確立了訟費保證金申請的法律原則，即一旦申請人證明特殊情況，舉證責任便轉移至被申請人，由其證明存在抗衡因素。本案法庭依循此原則進行分析。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭駁回丈夫要求妻子支付上訴訟費保證金的申請。法庭命令丈夫支付妻子就本次申請的訟費，經簡易評定為港幣131,500元。 ### 判決啟示 本案強調在訟費保證金申請中，即使申請人證明了特殊情況，法庭仍會考慮是否存在充分的抗衡因素。在家庭法案件中，若被申請人能證明其在離婚資產分配中可獲得的款項足以保障對方訟費，即使其非香港居民，法庭亦可能行使酌情權拒絕訟費保證金申請。這為處理跨境離婚案件中的訟費保證金問題提供了指引。 --- ### 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: ZJW v SY - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Lam VP and Kwan JA - Date of Judgment: 12 June 2017 ### Factual Background This case arose from a divorce petition. The wife (petitioner) filed for divorce in Hong Kong, but the trial judge dismissed the petition, ruling that the Hong Kong court lacked jurisdiction. The wife was granted leave to appeal. The husband (respondent) subsequently applied to the Court of Appeal for an order that the wife provide security for the costs of the appeal. His grounds were that the wife was not ordinarily resident in Hong Kong, might be impecunious, and enforcing a costs order abroad would be difficult and expensive. The wife countered that most family assets were controlled by the husband, and under Mainland Chinese law, assets would be equally divided upon divorce, with her share being sufficient to cover any costs order. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question in dispute was whether the Court of Appeal should order the appellant (wife) to provide security for the costs of her appeal, following the dismissal of her divorce petition. The husband argued that the wife's non-residency and potential impecuniosity made enforcement of a costs order difficult. The wife contended that the substantial family assets, largely controlled by the husband, and her anticipated share from Mainland divorce proceedings, negated the need for security. ### Ratio Decidendi The court, in considering the application for security for costs, acknowledged that the husband had demonstrated special circumstances (i.e., the wife's non-residency and the additional delay and expense in enforcing a costs order in Mainland China). However, the court found that the wife had successfully established a sufficient countervailing factor to warrant refusing the application. The court took into account the substantial size of the family assets, the fact that most were under the husband's control, and the prima facie position under PRC law for equal division of assets upon divorce. The court concluded that the wife's expectation of receiving a substantial equalisation payment from the husband would far exceed any potential costs order against her, thus adequately protecting the husband's costs interests without additional security. ### Key Precedents & Statutes Chung Kau v Hong Kong Housing Authority & Ors [2004] 2 HKLRD 650, which established the legal principles for applications for security for costs, stating that once an applicant demonstrates special circumstances, the burden shifts to the respondent to show countervailing factors. The court followed this principle in its analysis. ### Decision & Orders The court dismissed the husband's application for security for costs of the appeal. The court ordered the husband to pay the wife's costs for this application, summarily assessed at HK$131,500. ### Key Takeaways This judgment highlights that even when special circumstances are proven in a security for costs application, the court will consider sufficient countervailing factors. In family law cases, if the respondent can demonstrate that their share of matrimonial assets will adequately cover the applicant's costs, the court may exercise its discretion to refuse security for costs, even if the respondent is a non-resident. This provides guidance for handling security for costs issues in cross-border divorce cases. --- ### 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.