XDC v XDB

Facts

XDC (the Father) and XDB (the Mother) married in 2007 and have three children. The Mother filed for divorce in 2022 and interim judgment was granted on 29 September 2023. On 13 June 2024, after a lengthy trial, a District Judge made an interim order requiring the Father to pay monthly child and spousal maintenance, $9,000.00 a month towards household expenses, $1,025.00 a month for a domestic helper, $2,720.00 a month towards a rental vehicle, a fixed $25,000.00 for setting up a new home, moving costs capped at $5,000.00, and the children's international school fees. His appeal against that order was dismissed by the High Court on 6 November 2025.

The Mother filed Maintenance Summons No 1805 of 2024 on 13 August 2024 to enforce arrears, saying the Father had made no payment. The summons was held up by the Father's unsuccessful stay application and a lapsed appeal, and after a hearing in October 2025 at which he appeared by Zoom from France without the required approval, a warrant of arrest was issued. A second District Judge took over. On 7 January 2026 the Father did not attend, relying on a medical certificate that did not meet the practice direction requirements, and the hearing proceeded in his absence. By then the Mother claimed arrears of $356,437.60, and testified she had borrowed from family and friends and given up her lease. The Father did not deny being in arrears but put them at $228,344.00 and proposed staggered payments. The Father appealed the resulting enforcement order (HCF/DCA 6 of 2026), and these are the grounds of decision.

Issues

1. Whether sums fixed in the interim order were payable regardless of actual expenditure
2. Whether particular heads of the claimed arrears should be reduced or excluded
3. Whether the Father had shown cause why the arrears should not be enforced, given his claimed lack of means and a Mareva injunction over his properties
4. Whether a default term of imprisonment should be attached to the show payments

Holding

The court allowed the Mother's enforcement application in part, fixing arrears at $318,925.00 payable to the Mother and $26,317.75 payable to the international school, below the sum she claimed. It ordered $90,000.00 to be paid by 28 January 2026 and the balance of $228,925.00 by 14 April 2026, with show payments, five days' imprisonment for each default, a banker's guarantee for three months' maintenance, and costs of $25,000.00. The Father later paid in full and the court treated the enforcement order as fully discharged, though he maintained his appeal.

Reasoning

The court held that where the interim order fixed a sum for a purpose, that sum was payable whether or not it was spent; only items stated to be reimbursable, or plainly dependent on actual cost, turned on expenditure. Reading in conditions would let the Father's own non-payment excuse him. It also refused to pro-rate June 2024.

Applying that approach, the household expense sum was reduced for the period the Mother stayed in the matrimonial home, since the Father was already covering those costs, to avoid double-counting. The Mother withdrew the helper claim before September 2024. The $25,000.00 setting-up sum was fixed and due, moving costs were allowed at $2,800.00 on her receipts and account, and the vehicle sum was payable even though no car was rented, but the car deposit, qualified by "if any", was not.

On cause, the court found the Father's assets sufficient. The Mareva injunction did not stop him using the French and Hong Kong properties as security for a loan, and he also held shares, a car and bank balances. He had conceded arrears of $90,259.00 at a hearing on 30 June 2025 yet did nothing for six months, which the court said showed a lack of bona fides.

The court described the Father's breach as intentional and contumacious and attached a default imprisonment term. It added that maintenance enforcement is not a forum for haggling, and that a consistent approach with the later amendments to the Women's Charter 1961 was appropriate.

From the judgment