The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by P.C. against a High Court decision to make no order as to costs in proceedings connected with a divorce and an application for ancillary relief.
The appeal concerned only the costs ruling. The High Court had set aside leave granted to W.Y.Y.P. to apply for ancillary relief under Part III of the Family Law Act 1995, finding serious material non-disclosure in the affidavit on which leave had been obtained. The High Court declined to grant fresh leave. It later decided that each party should bear their own costs of the motion to set aside leave.
P.C. argued that costs should follow the event because the motion succeeded and the non-disclosure affected his interests. He also argued that the High Court had given no adequate reason to depart from the usual approach. W.Y.Y.P. submitted that the High Court retained discretion and that non-disclosure did not automatically require an adverse costs order.
The Supreme Court considered the Hong Kong divorce proceedings and the related order and hearing transcript. The order dismissed claims for several forms of ancillary relief but did not address unsecured periodical payments. The transcript discussed whether claims for periodical payments should remain open. The Supreme Court said the transcript did not wholly support P.C.’s position.
The Court also noted that the High Court had evidence that W.Y.Y.P.’s allegations of duress and undue influence were prima facie supported. It said material non-disclosure was serious but did not necessarily require an adverse costs order, and that the party’s conduct was only one factor among several in the costs decision.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had considered the general rule that costs normally follow the event and had exercised its discretion within its jurisdiction, taking account of the matrimonial context. It declined to interfere with that discretion and dismissed the appeal. The Court did not determine the underlying application for ancillary relief in this appeal.