關於 introduction to romantic period ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

這是前些日子爆出已經被加拿大法院接理對藏傳佛教噶舉派法王的訟訴。（加拿大法院鏈接在此：https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/21/09/2021BCSC0939cor1.htm?fbclid=IwAR2FLZlzmUIGTBaTuKPVchEqqngcE3Qy6G_C0TWNWVKa2ksbIYkVJVMQ8f8）

這位法王的桃色事件，我是幾年前才聽到。但，藏傳佛教的高層有這些性醜聞，我已經聽了幾十年。我以前的一位前女友也被一些堪布藉故上她的家摟抱過，也有一些活佛跟她表白。（這不只是她，其他地方我也聽過不少）

這是一個藏傳佛教裡面系統式的問題。

很多時候發生這種事情，信徒和教主往往都是說女方得不到寵而報仇，或者說她們也精神病，或者說她們撒謊。

我不排除有這種可能性，但，多過一位，甚至多位出來指證的時候，我是傾向於相信『沒有那麼巧這麼多有精神病的女人要撒謊來報仇』。

大寶法王的桃色事件，最先吹哨的是一位台灣的在家信徒，第二位是香港的女出家人，現在加拿大又多一位公開舉報上法庭。

對大寶法王信徒來說，這一次的比較麻煩，因為是有孩子的。（關於有孩子的，我早在法王的桃色事件曝光時，就有聽聞）

如果法庭勒令要驗證DNA，這對法王和他的信徒來說，會很尷尬和矛盾，因為做或不做，都死。

你若問我，我覺得『人數是有力量的』，同時我也覺得之後有更多的人站出來，是不出奇的。

我也藉此呼籲各方佛教徒，如果你們真的愛佛教，先別說批判，但如鴕鳥般不討論這些爭議，你是間接害了佛教。

（下面是我從加拿大法院鏈接拷貝下來的內容，當中有很多細節。）

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

ANALYSIS

A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case

B. The Test to Amend Pleadings

C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases

D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship

E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?

F. Delay / Prejudice

CONCLUSION



INTRODUCTION
[1] The claimant applies to amend her notice of family claim to seek spousal support. At issue is whether the claimant’s allegations give rise to a reasonable claim she lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship, so as to give rise to a potential entitlement to spousal support under the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 (“FLA”).

[2] The facts alleged by the claimant do not fit within a traditional concept of marriage. The claimant does not allege that she and the respondent ever lived together. Indeed, she has only met the respondent in person four times: twice very briefly in a public setting; a third time in private, when she alleges the respondent sexually assaulted her; and a fourth and final occasion, when she informed the respondent she was pregnant with his child.

[3] The claimant’s case is that what began as a non-consensual sexual encounter evolved into a loving and affectionate relationship. That relationship occurred almost entirely over private text messages. The parties rarely spoke on the telephone, and never saw one another during the relationship, even over video. The claimant says they could not be together because the respondent is forbidden by his station and religious beliefs from intimate relationships or marriage. Nonetheless, she alleges, they formed a marriage-like relationship that lasted from January 2018 to January 2019.

[4] The respondent denies any romantic relationship with the claimant. While he acknowledges providing emotional and financial support to the claimant, he says it was for the benefit of the child the claimant told him was his daughter.

[5] The claimant’s proposed amendment raises a novel question: can a secret relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world be like a marriage? In my view, that question should be answered by a trial judge after hearing all of the evidence. The alleged facts give rise to a reasonable claim the claimant lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship. Accordingly, I grant the claimant leave to amend her notice of family claim.

BACKGROUND
[6] It should be emphasized that this is an application to amend pleadings only. The allegations by the claimant are presumed to be true for the purposes of this application. Those allegations have not been tested in a court of law.

[7] The respondent, Ogyen Trinley Dorje, is a high lama of the Karma Kagyu School of Tibetan Buddhism. He has been recognized and enthroned as His Holiness, the 17th Gyalwang Karmapa. Without meaning any disrespect, I will refer to him as Mr. Dorje in these reasons for judgment.

[8] Mr. Dorje leads a monastic and nomadic lifestyle. His true home is Tibet, but he currently resides in India. He receives followers from around the world at the Gyuto Monetary in India. He also travels the world teaching Tibetan Buddhist Dharma and hosting pujas, ceremonies at which Buddhists express their gratitude and devotion to the Buddha.

[9] The claimant, Vikki Hui Xin Han, is a former nun of Tibetan Buddhism. Ms. Han first encountered Mr. Dorje briefly at a large puja in 2014. The experience of the puja convinced Ms. Han she wanted to become a Buddhist nun. She met briefly with Mr. Dorje, in accordance with Kagyu traditions, to obtain his approval to become a nun.

[10] In October 2016, Ms. Han began a three-year, three-month meditation retreat at a monastery in New York State. Her objective was to learn the practices and teachings of the Kagyu Lineage. Mr. Dorje was present at the retreat twice during the time Ms. Han was at the monastery.

[11] Ms. Han alleges that on October 14, 2017, Mr. Dorje sexually assaulted her in her room at the monastery. She alleges that she became pregnant from the assault.

[12] After she learned that she was pregnant, Ms. Han requested a private audience with Mr. Dorje. In November 2017, in the presence of his bodyguards, Ms. Han informed Mr. Dorje she was pregnant with his child. Mr. Dorje initially denied responsibility; however, he provided Ms. Han with his email address and a cellphone number, and, according to Ms. Han, said he would “prepare some money” for her.

[13] Ms. Han abandoned her plan to become a nun, left the retreat and returned to Canada. She never saw Mr. Dorje again.

[14] After Ms. Han returned to Canada, she and Mr. Dorje began a regular communication over an instant messaging app called Line. They also exchanged emails and occasionally spoke on the telephone.

[15] The parties appear to have expressed care and affection for one another in these communications. I say “appear to” because it is difficult to fully understand the meaning and intentions of another person from brief text messages, especially those originally written in a different language. The parties wrote in a private shorthand, sharing jokes, emojis, cartoon portraits and “hugs” or “kisses”. Ms. Han was the more expressive of the two, writing more frequently and in longer messages. Mr. Dorje generally participated in response to questions or prompting from Ms. Han, sometimes in single word messages.

[16] Ms. Han deposes that she believed Mr. Dorje was in love with her and that, by January 2018, she and Mr. Dorje were living in a “conjugal relationship”.

[17] During their communications, Ms. Han expressed concern that her child would be “illegitimate”. She appears to have asked Mr. Dorje to marry her, and he appears to have responded that he was “not ready”.

[18] Throughout 2018, Mr. Dorje transferred funds in various denominations to Ms. Han through various third parties. Ms. Han deposes that these funds were:

a) $50,000 CDN to deliver the child and for postpartum care she was to receive at a facility in Seattle;

b) $300,000 CDN for the first year of the child’s life;

c) $20,000 USD for a wedding ring, because Ms. Han wrote “Even if we cannot get married, you must buy me a wedding ring”;

d) $400,000 USD to purchase a home for the mother and child.

[19] On June 19, 2018, Ms. Han gave birth to a daughter in Richmond, B.C.

[20] On September 17, 2018, Mr. Dorje wrote, ”Taking care of her and you are my duty for life”.

[21] Ms. Han’s expectation was that the parties would live together in the future. She says they planned to live together. Those plans evolved over time. Initially they involved purchasing a property in Toronto, so that Mr. Dorje could visit when he was in New York. They also discussed purchasing property in Calgary or renting a home in Vancouver for that purpose. Ms. Han eventually purchased a condominium in Richmond using funds provided by Mr. Dorje.

[22] Ms. Han deposes that the parties made plans for Mr. Dorje to visit her and meet the child in Richmond. In October 2018, however, Mr. Dorje wrote that he needed to “disappear” to Europe. He wrote:

I will definitely find a way to meet her

And you

Remember to take care of yourself if something happens

[23] The final plan the parties discussed, according to Ms. Han, was that Mr. Dorje would sponsor Ms. Han and the child to immigrate to the United States and live at the Kagyu retreat centre in New York State.

[24] In January 2019, Ms. Han lost contact with Mr. Dorje.

[25] Ms. Han commenced this family law case on July 17, 2019, seeking child support, a declaration of parentage and a parentage test. She did not seek spousal support.

[26] Ms. Han first proposed a claim for spousal support in October 2020 after a change in her counsel. Following an exchange of correspondence concerning an application for leave to amend the notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s counsel wrote that Ms. Han would not be advancing a spousal support claim. On March 16, 2020, counsel reversed course, and advised that Ms. Han had instructed him to proceed with the application.

[27] When this application came on before me, the trial was set to commence on June 7, 2021. The parties were still in the process of discoveries and obtaining translations for hundreds of pages of documents in Chinese characters.

[28] At a trial management conference on May 6, 2021, noting the parties were not ready to proceed, Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to April 11, 2022.

ANALYSIS
A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case
[29] To claim spousal support in this case, Ms. Han must plead that she lived with Mr. Dorje in a marriage-like relationship. This is because only “spouses” are entitled to spousal support, and s. 3 of the Family Law Act defines a spouse as a person who is married or has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship:

3 (1) A person is a spouse for the purposes of this Act if the person

(a) is married to another person, or

(b) has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship, and

(i) has done so for a continuous period of at least 2 years, or

(ii) except in Parts 5 [Property Division] and 6 [Pension Division], has a child with the other person.

[30] Because she alleges she has a child with Mr. Dorje, Ms. Han need not allege that the relationship endured for a continuous period of two years to claim spousal support; but she must allege that she lived in a marriage-like relationship with him at some point in time. Accordingly, she must amend the notice of family claim.

B. The Test to Amend Pleadings
[31] Given that the notice of trial has been served, Ms. Han requires leave of the court to amend the notice of family claim: Supreme Court Family Rule 8-1(1)(b)(i).

[32] A person seeking to amend a notice of family claim must show that there is a reasonable cause of action. This is a low threshold. What the applicant needs to establish is that, if the facts pleaded are proven at trial, they would support a reasonable claim. The applicant’s allegations of fact are assumed to be true for the purposes of this analysis. Cantelon v. Wall, 2015 BCSC 813, at para. 7-8.

[33] The applicant’s delay, the reasons for the delay, and the prejudice to the responding party are also relevant factors. The ultimate consideration is whether it would be just and convenient to allow the amendment. Cantelon, at para. 6, citing Teal Cedar Products Ltd. v. Dale Intermediaries Ltd. et al (1986), 19 B.C.L.R. (3d) 282.

C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases
[34] Supreme Court Family Rules 3-1(1) and 4-1(1) require that a claim to spousal support be pleaded in a notice of family claim in Form F3. Section 2 of Form F3, “Spousal relationship history”, requires a spousal support claimant to check the boxes that apply to them, according to whether they are or have been married or are or have been in a marriage-like relationship. Where a claimant alleges a marriage-like relationship, Form F3 requires that they provide the date on which they began to live together with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship and, where applicable, the date on which they separated. Form F3 does not require a statement of the factual basis for the claim of spousal support.

[35] In this case, Ms. Han seeks to amend the notice of family claim to allege that she and Mr. Dorje began to live in a marriage-like relationship in or around January 2018, and separated in or around January 2019.

[36] An allegation that a person lived with a claimant in a marriage-like relationship is a conclusion of law, not an allegation of fact. Unlike the rules governing pleadings in civil actions, however, the Supreme Court Family Rules do not expressly require family law claimants to plead the material facts in support of conclusions of law.

[37] In other words, there is no express requirement in the Supreme Court Family Rules that Ms. Han plead the facts on which she relies for the allegation she and Mr. Dorje lived in a marriage-like relationship.

[38] Rule 4-6 authorizes a party to demand particulars, and then apply to the court for an order for further and better particulars, of a matter stated in a pleading. However, unless and until she is granted leave and files the proposed amended notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s allegation of a marriage-like relationship is not a matter stated in a pleading.

[39] Ms. Han filed an affidavit in support of her application to amend the notice of family claim. Normally, evidence would not be required or admissible on an application to amend a pleading. However, in the unusual circumstances of this case, the parties agreed I may look to Ms. Han’s affidavit and exhibits for the facts she pleads in support of the allegation of a marriage-like relationship.

[40] Because this is an application to amend - and Ms. Han’s allegations of fact are presumed to be true - I have not considered Mr. Dorje’s responding affidavit.

[41] Relying on affidavit evidence for an application to amend pleadings is less than ideal. It tends to merge and confuse the material facts with the evidence that would be relied on to prove those facts. In a number of places in her affidavit, for example, Ms. Han describes her feelings, impressions and understandings. A person’s hopes and intentions are not normally material facts unless they are mutual or reasonably held. The facts on which Ms. Han alleges she and Mr. Dorje formed a marriage-like relationship are more important for the present purposes than her belief they entered into a conjugal union.

[42] Somewhat unusually, in this case, almost all of the parties’ relevant communications were in writing. This makes it somewhat easier to separate the facts from the evidence; however, as stated above, it is difficult to understand the intentions and actions of a person from brief text messages.

[43] In my view, it would be a good practice for applicants who seek to amend their pleadings in family law cases to provide opposing counsel and the court with a schedule of the material facts on which they rely for the proposed amendment.

D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship
[44] As Mr. Justice Myers observed in Mother 1 v. Solus Trust Company, 2019 BCSC 200, the concept of a marriage-like relationship is elastic and difficult to define. This elasticity is illustrated by the following passage from Yakiwchuk v. Oaks, 2003 SKQB 124, quoted by Myers J. at para. 133 of Mother 1:

[10] Spousal relationships are many and varied. Individuals in spousal relationships, whether they are married or not, structure their relationships differently. In some relationships there is a complete blending of finances and property - in others, spouses keep their property and finances totally separate and in still others one spouse may totally control those aspects of the relationship with the other spouse having little or no knowledge or input. For some couples, sexual relations are very important - for others, that aspect may take a back seat to companionship. Some spouses do not share the same bed. There may be a variety of reasons for this such as health or personal choice. Some people are affectionate and demonstrative. They show their feelings for their “spouse” by holding hands, touching and kissing in public. Other individuals are not demonstrative and do not engage in public displays of affection. Some “spouses” do everything together - others do nothing together. Some “spouses” vacation together and some spend their holidays apart. Some “spouses” have children - others do not. It is this variation in the way human beings structure their relationships that make the determination of when a “spousal relationship” exists difficult to determine. With married couples, the relationship is easy to establish. The marriage ceremony is a public declaration of their commitment and intent. Relationships outside marriage are much more difficult to ascertain. Rarely is there any type of “public” declaration of intent. Often people begin cohabiting with little forethought or planning. Their motivation is often nothing more than wanting to “be together”. Some individuals have chosen to enter relationships outside marriage because they did not want the legal obligations imposed by that status. Some individuals have simply given no thought as to how their relationship would operate. Often the date when the cohabitation actually began is blurred because people “ease into” situations, spending more and more time together. Agreements between people verifying when their relationship began and how it will operate often do not exist.

[45] In Mother 1, Mr. Justice Myers referred to a list of 22 factors grouped into seven categories, from Maldowich v. Penttinen, (1980), 17 R.F.L. (2d) 376 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), that have frequently been cited in this and other courts for the purpose of determining whether a relationship was marriage-like, at para. 134 of Mother 1:

1. Shelter:

(a) Did the parties live under the same roof?

(b) What were the sleeping arrangements?

(c) Did anyone else occupy or share the available accommodation?

2. Sexual and Personal Behaviour:

(a) Did the parties have sexual relations? If not, why not?

(b) Did they maintain an attitude of fidelity to each other?

(c) What were their feelings toward each other?

(d) Did they communicate on a personal level?

(e) Did they eat their meals together?

(f) What, if anything, did they do to assist each other with problems or during illness?

(g) Did they buy gifts for each other on special occasions?

3. Services:

What was the conduct and habit of the parties in relation to:

(a) preparation of meals;

(b) washing and mending clothes;

(c) shopping;

(d) household maintenance; and

(e) any other domestic services?

4. Social:

(a) Did they participate together or separately in neighbourhood and community activities?

(b) What was the relationship and conduct of each of them toward members of their respective families and how did such families behave towards the parties?

5. Societal:

What was the attitude and conduct of the community toward each of them and as a couple?

6. Support (economic):

(a) What were the financial arrangements between the parties regarding the provision of or contribution toward the necessaries of life (food, clothing, shelter, recreation, etc.)?

(b) What were the arrangements concerning the acquisition and ownership of property?

(c) Was there any special financial arrangement between them which both agreed would be determinant of their overall relationship?

7. Children:

What was the attitude and conduct of the parties concerning children?

[46] In Austin v. Goerz, 2007 BCCA 586, the Court of Appeal cautioned against a “checklist approach”; rather, a court should "holistically" examine all the relevant factors. Cases like Molodowich provide helpful indicators of the sorts of behaviour that society associates with a marital relationship, the Court of Appeal said; however, “the presence or absence of any particular factor cannot be determinative of whether a relationship is marriage-like” (para. 58).

[47] In Weber v. Leclerc, 2015 BCCA 492, the Court of Appeal again affirmed that there is no checklist of characteristics that will be found in all marriages and then concluded with respect to evidence of intentions:

[23] The parties’ intentions – particularly the expectation that the relationship will be of lengthy, indeterminate duration – may be of importance in determining whether a relationship is “marriage-like”. While the court will consider the evidence expressly describing the parties’ intentions during the relationship, it will also test that evidence by considering whether the objective evidence is consonant with those intentions.

[24] The question of whether a relationship is “marriage-like” will also typically depend on more than just their intentions. Objective evidence of the parties’ lifestyle and interactions will also provide direct guidance on the question of whether the relationship was “marriage-like”.

[48] Significantly for this case, the courts have looked to mutual intent in order to find a marriage-like relationship. See, for example, L.E. v. D.J., 2011 BCSC 671 and Buell v. Unger, 2011 BCSC 35; Davey Estate v. Gruyaert, 2005 CarswellBC 3456 at 13 and 35.

[49] In Mother 1, Myers J. concluded his analysis of the law with the following learned comment:

[143] Having canvassed the law relating to the nature of a marriage-like relationship, I will digress to point out the problematic nature of the concept. It may be apparent from the above that determining whether a marriage-like relationship exists sometimes seems like sand running through one's fingers. Simply put, a marriage-like relationship is akin to a marriage without the formality of a marriage. But as the cases mentioned above have noted, people treat their marriages differently and have different conceptions of what marriage entails.

[50] In short, the determination of whether the parties in this case lived in a marriage-like relationship is a fact-specific inquiry that a trial judge would need to make on a “holistic” basis, having regard to all of the evidence. While the trial judge may consider the various factors listed in the authorities, those factors would not be treated as a checklist and no single factor or category of factors would be treated as being decisive.

E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?
[51] In this case, many of the Molodowich factors are missing:

a) The parties never lived under the same roof. They never slept together. They were never in the same place at the same time during the relationship. The last time they saw each other in person was in November 2017, before the relationship began.

b) The parties never had consensual sex. They did not hug, kiss or hold hands. With the exception of the alleged sexual assault, they never touched one another physically.

c) The parties expressed care and affection for one another, but they rarely shared personal information or interest in their lives outside of their direct topic of communication. They did not write about their families, their friends, their religious beliefs or their work.

d) They expressed concern and support for one another when the other felt unwell or experienced health issues, but they did not provide any care or assistance during illness or other problems.

e) They did not assist one another with domestic chores.

f) They did not share their relationship with their peers or their community. There is no allegation, for example, that Mr. Dorje told his fellow monks or any of his followers about the relationship. There is no allegation that Ms. Han told her friends or any co-workers. Indeed, there is no allegation that anyone, with the exception of Ms. Han’s mother, knew about the relationship. Although Mr. Dorje gave Ms. Han’s mother a gift, he never met the mother and he never spoke to her.

g) They did not intend to have a child together. The child was conceived as a result of a sexual assault. While Mr. Dorje expressed interest in “meeting” the child, he never followed up. He currently has no relationship with the child. There is no allegation he has sought access or parenting arrangements.

[52] The only Molodowich factor of any real relevance in this case is economic support. Mr. Dorje provided the funds with which Ms. Han purchased a condominium. Mr. Dorje initially wrote that he wanted to buy a property with the money, but, he wrote, “It’s the same thing if you buy [it]”.

[53] Mr. Dorje also provided a significant amount of money for Ms. Han’s postpartum care and the child’s first year of life.

[54] This financial support may have been primarily for the benefit of the child. Even the condominium, Ms. Han wrote, was primarily for the benefit of the child.

[55] However, in my view, a trial judge may attach a broader significance to the financial support from Mr. Dorje than child support alone. A trial judge may find that the money Mr. Dorje provided to Ms. Han at her request was an expression of his commitment to her in circumstances in which he could not commit physically. The money and the gifts may be seen by the trial judge to have been a form of down payment by Mr. Dorje on a promise of continued emotional and financial support for Ms. Han, or, in Mr. Dorje’s own words, “Taking care of her and you are my duty for life” (emphasis added).

[56] On the other hand, I find it difficult to attach any particular significance to the fact that Mr. Dorje agreed to provide funds for Ms. Han to purchase a wedding ring. It appears to me that Ms. Han demanded that Mr. Dorje buy her a wedding ring, not that the ring had any mutual meaning to the parties as a marriage symbol. But it is relevant, in my view, that Mr. Dorje provided $20,000 USD to Ms. Han for something she wanted that was of no benefit to the child.

[57] Further, Ms. Han alleges that the parties intended to live together. At a minimum, a trial judge may find that the discussions about where Ms. Han and the child would live reflected a mutual intention of the parties to see one another and spend time together when they could.

[58] Mr. Dorje argues that an intention to live together at some point in the future is not sufficient to show that an existing relationship was marriage-like. He argues that the question of whether the relationship was marriage-like requires more than just intentions, citing Weber, supra.

[59] In my view, the documentary evidence referred to above provides some objective evidence in this case that the parties progressed beyond mere intentions. As stated, the parties appear to have expressed genuine care and affection for one another. They appear to have discussed marriage, trust, honesty, finances, mutual obligations and acquiring family property. These are not matters one would expect Mr. Dorje to discuss with a friend or a follower, or even with the mother of his child, without a marriage-like element of the relationship.

[60] A trial judge may find on the facts alleged by Ms. Han that the parties loved one another and would have lived together, but were unable to do so because of Mr. Dorje’s religious duties and nomadic lifestyle.

[61] The question I raised in the introduction to these reasons is whether a relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world can be marriage-like.

[62] Notably, the definition of a spouse in the Family Law Act does not require that the parties live together, only that they live with another person in a marriage-like relationship.

[63] In Connor Estate, 2017 BCSC 978, Mr. Justice Kent found that a couple that maintained two entirely separate households and never lived under the same roof formed a marriage-like relationship. (Connor Estate was decided under the intestacy provisions of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, S.B.C. 2009, c. 13 ("WESA"), but courts have relied on cases decided under WESA and the FLA interchangeably for their definitions of a spouse.) Mr. Justice Kent found:

[50] The evidence is overwhelming and I find as a fact that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved and cared deeply about each other, and that they had a loving and intimate relationship for over 20 years that was far more than mere friendship or even so-called "friendship with benefits". I accept Mr. Chambers' evidence that he would have liked to share a home with Ms. Connor after the separation from his wife, but was unable to do so because of Ms. Connor's hoarding illness. The evidence amply supports, and I find as a fact, that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved each other, were faithful to each other, communicated with each other almost every day when they were not together, considered themselves to be (and presented themselves to be) "husband and wife" and were accepted by all who knew them as a couple.

[64] Connor Estate may be distinguishable from this case because Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor were physically intimate for over 20 years, and presented themselves to the world as a married couple.

[65] Other decisions in which a marriage-like relationship has been found to exist despite the parties not living together have involved circumstances in which the couple lived under the same roof at previous points in the relationship, and the issue was whether they continued to be spouses after they took up separate residences: in Thompson v. Floyd, 2001 BCCA 78, the parties had lived together for a period of at least 11 years; in Roach v. Dutra, 2010 BCCA 264, the parties had lived together for approximately three years.

[66] However, as Mr. Justice Kent noted in Connor Estate:

[48] … [W]hile much guidance might be found in this case law, the simple fact is that no two cases are identical (and indeed they usually vary widely) and it is the assessment of evidence as a whole in this particular case which matters.

[67] Mr. Justice Kent concluded:

[53] Like human beings themselves, marriage-like relationships can come in many and various shapes. In this particular case, I have no doubt that such a relationship existed …

[68] As stated, Ms. Han’s claim is novel. It may even be weak. Almost all of the traditional factors are missing. The fact that Ms. Han and Mr. Dorje never lived under the same roof, never shared a bed and never even spent time together in person will militate against a finding they lived with one another in a marriage-like relationship. However, the traditional factors are not a mandatory check-list that confines the “elastic” concept of a marriage-like relationship. And if the COVID pandemic has taught us nothing else, it is that real relationships can form, blossom and end in virtual worlds.

[69] In my view, the merits of Ms. Han’s claim should be decided on the evidence. Subject to an overriding prejudice to Mr. Dorje, she should have leave to amend the notice of family claim. However, she should also provide meaningful particulars of the alleged marriage-like relationship.

F. Delay / Prejudice
[70] Ms. Han filed her notice of family claim on July 17, 2019. She brought this application to amend approximately one year and nine months after she filed the pleading, just over two months before the original trial date.

[71] Ms. Han’s delay was made all that more remarkable by her change in position from January 19, 2021, when she confirmed, through counsel, that she was not seeking spousal support in this case.

[72] Ms. Han gave notice of her intention to proceed with this application to Mr. Dorje on March 16, 2021. By the time the application was heard, the parties had conducted examinations for discovery without covering the issues that would arise from a claim of spousal support.

[73] Also, in April, Ms. Han produced additional documents, primarily text messages, that may be relevant to her claim of spousal support, but were undecipherable to counsel for Mr. Dorje, who does not read Mandarin.

[74] This application proceeded largely on documents selected and translated by counsel for Ms. Han. I was informed that Mandarin translations of the full materials would take 150 days.

[75] Understandably in the circumstances, Mr. Dorje argued that an amendment two months before trial would be neither just nor convenient. He argued that he would be prejudiced by an adjournment so as to allow Ms. Han to advance a late claim of spousal support.

[76] The circumstances changed on May 6, 2021, when Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to July 2022 and reset it for 25 days. Madam Justice Walkem noted that most of the witnesses live internationally and require translators. She also noted that paternity may be in issue, and Mr. Dorje may amend his pleadings to raise that issue. It seems clear that, altogether apart from the potential spousal support claim, the parties were not ready to proceed to trial on June 7, 2021.

[77] In my view, any remaining prejudice to Mr. Dorje is outweighed by the importance of having all of the issues between the parties decided on their merits.

[78] Ms. Han’s delay and changes of position on spousal support may be a matter to de addressed in a future order of costs; but they are not grounds on which to deny her leave to amend the notice of family claim.

CONCLUSION
[79] Ms. Han is granted leave to amend her notice of family claim in the form attached as Appendix A to the notice of application to include a claim for spousal support.

[80] Within 21 days, or such other deadline as the parties may agree, Ms. Han must provide particulars of the marriage-like relationship alleged in the amended notice of family claim.

[81] Ms. Han is entitled to costs of this application in the cause of the spousal support claim.

“Master Elwood”

利迷之間瘋傳嘅超長文，感謝呢位師兄譯得咁傳神！睇到好激動！睇完更加覺得利迷可以有高普帶領球隊係全世界最幸福嘅球迷。

記得因為古仔單嘢，有好多對球會批評嘅聲音同不利嘅傳聞，令到球會上下都好大壓力。報導入面有句咁講：「高普其中一樣天賦就係對人嘅信任」，作為球迷，我會學習高普，選擇相信，無論係邊一個崗位，大家都要團結一致，支持利物浦再創新高峰。

https://www.facebook.com/groups/OLSCHKSAR/permalink/10156466140299828/

最近有篇超長文講高普，唔想睇英文又唔想Google Translate?冇問題，今次有母語翻譯！每句英粵對照，唔想睇英文嘅就Skip嚟睇啦

警告：內含粗口，對粗口過敏者請按"上一頁"

[母語翻譯]
From Hong Kong to Kiev:
At the end of the storm,
there's a golden sky...
由香港到基輔：
暴雨過後 總有晴天

The inside story of how Jurgen Klopp
weathered the worst to lead Liverpool
into the Champions League final
究竟高普點樣帶住利物浦捱過風浪殺入歐聯決賽

By Melissa Reddy

"And now, we will go to Kiev. It sounds crazy, but it's true."
“我哋嚟緊就去基輔。聽起嚟痴撚線，但係真㗎。“

The downpours, pelting over Kowloon as though they were bullets from above, had finally subsided. For Liverpool, however, this was the inception of the storm.
嚟香港踢波先落狗屎，唔同連個天都唔鍾意我。但原來對利物浦嚟講，果日只係惡夢嘅開始。

Before the sun could fully crack through the scattered clouds that Friday morning in Hong Kong last July 21st, Jurgen Klopp’s phone screen was crowded with notifications from sporting director, Michael Edwards, and Fenway Sports Group president, Mike Gordon.
舊年7月21號，打鑼咁早，身在香港嘅高普部電話已經畀體育總監Michael Edwards同FSG總裁Mike Gordon嘅message震爆咗。

The news being broken to the manager - the club had instantly rejected a £72 million bid from Barcelona for Philippe Coutinho - was yesterday’s back-page buffet in the United Kingdom courtesy of the seven-hour time difference.
喺高普同隊波仲瞓緊覺果時，球會已經拒絕咗巴塞羅拿對古天奴7200萬鎊嘅開價。

Klopp’s designs for the pre-season tour had already been scaled back due to monsoon conditions that prompted cancelled training sessions and improvised workouts.
高普嘅季前熱身計劃本身已經畀香港嘅天氣打亂咗，原有嘅訓練只可以改為體能訓練。

It was this development, though, which had the potential to cyclone through their preparations for 2017-18.
但呢鑊就真係堅，隨時將成季嘅部署打亂晒。

Liverpool could not have been more unambiguous in their response to the offer: there would be no summer sale, regardless of how much the fee shot up.
利物浦嘅官方回應好堅定：無論幾多錢，今個夏天都唔會賣。

Undisguised, too, was the fact La Liga’s giants would return armed with a traditional media offensive that would pack more of a punch than their improved proposals.
而另一方面，更加肯定嘅係，呢支西甲班霸唔會就咁放棄，佢哋媒體喉舌嘅攻勢比起佢哋嘅叫價更加凌厲。

The only variable surrounded the focal point. What was Coutinho, who had signed a new five-year deal without a release clause that January, thinking?
唯一唔肯定嘅係，究竟啱啱喺1月簽咗5年約嘅古天奴點諗呢？

As Klopp entered the private assembly room for breakfast at the palatial Ritz-Carlton, the answer immediately presented itself. The 25-year-old, inner turmoil tinting his facial features, was on edge with “an instant difference in his body language,” according to observers.
當高普行入香港Ritz-Carlton酒店準備畀球隊食早餐果間房嘅時候，即刻明晒。古天奴嘅面部表情同身體語言都話畀大家知，佢心入面十五十六。

So this was a problem. Klopp walked over to Coutinho to schedule a talk for that evening, when they had an honest and respectful exchange.
呢個係一個問題。高普同古天奴講，約定傍晚攤牌講清楚。

Liverpool could not simply delete their plans for the season on account of Barcelona being unprepared for the loss of Neymar to Paris Saint-Germain, the Reds boss explained.
高普話，巴塞羅拿戇鳩鳩畀尼馬走咗去巴黎聖日耳門，唔代表利物浦就要跟住一齊柒㗎嘛。

It was a point he circled back to, while also emphasising that the timing was wrong, as was the message it would send about the club.
高普不停重複呢一點，佢仲提到， 呢刻賣人時機錯晒，而且外界會點樣睇利物浦呢？

Coutinho understood that, but highlighted the sacrifices his wife, Aine, and parents had made for his career. The future revolved around them as much as it did his own ambitions.
古天奴好明白，但佢提到佢老婆Aine同埋佢父母已經為佢嘅職業犧牲好多。諗將來嘅時候佢除咗考慮自己嘅目標，亦都要考慮屋企人。

He was happy at Liverpool, he loved the club, he was full of gratitude… But this was Barcelona. And beyond that, it represented a lifestyle change for his family, who could function within a culture so much closer to their own.
佢喺利物浦好開心。佢好鍾意隊波，亦都心存感激。但係，果隊係巴塞喎。除此之外，轉會仲代表生活上重大嘅轉變，搬去果邊嘅文化會更加適合佢屋企。

Klopp acknowledged Coutinho’s thought process, but repeated that it was about Liverpool and this was not the right thing for the club, for his teammates, or for their season ambitions.
高普好明白古天奴嘅思路，但佢再次強調，呢個係利物浦嘅問題，呢個對隊波唔係好事，對班波同對佢哋今季嘅大計都唔係好事。

The message was reinforced privately by Edwards and the ownership before a public declaration.
喺發出官方聲明之前，Edwards同老闆都分別私底下向古天奴重申呢幾點。

/“We wish to offer clarity as regards our position on a possible transfer of Philippe Coutinho,” read a statement on the club’s official website on August 11 2017, which highlighted their “definitive stance is that no offers for Philippe will be considered and he will remain a member of Liverpool FC when the summer window closes.”

“我們特此重申有關古天奴轉會一事之立場” 球會於2017年8月11日發出官方聲明“任何對古天奴的開價均不會被考慮，他於夏季轉會窗關閉時將繼續是利物浦的一員”/

Through the clinking glasses and guffaws, there is thick blend of relief and defiance daubing the atmosphere in the Freshfield area of Formby.
利物浦附近嘅一個小鎮 Formby 充斥住杯碟聲同埋歡笑聲。

It is Saturday, January 6 2018, where a long-scheduled New Year’s celebration for Liverpool’s staff at the Klopp residence has coincided with the £142m sale of Coutinho to Barcelona.
今年1月6號星期六，成班利物浦嘅職球員喺高普屋企開緊Party。無獨有偶，球會啱啱公佈古天奴將會以1億4200萬鎊身價加盟巴塞。

The news had been released shortly before the flow of Monkey 47 gin and a catalogue of German lager at the gathering, with the message following the announcement on the club’s official website entirely scripted by the manager.
呢個消息都係喺佢地呢個不醉無歸嘅聚會之前無耐公佈，而呢篇球會嘅官方聲明其實係出自高普手筆。

/“Players will come and players will go, that is football, but as a club we are big enough and strong enough to continue with our aggressive progression on the pitch, even when we lose an important player. We have never been in a better position in recent times, as a club, to react in the right way. We will use our size and strength to absorb moments like this and still move forward.”
“有出先有入，足球係咁㗎啦。但我哋作為一間球會，即使無咗一個重要嘅球員，都應該夠堅強喺球場上繼續拼搏。我哋而家處於近年嚟最好嘅時間去應對呢個轉變，我哋應該夠強大去適應然後繼續向前。”/

That night, as the spine of the football staff and their partners made his home their own, Klopp may as well have had the words inked on his appearance.
果晚，當球員帶埋佢地嘅另一半去到高普屋企嘅時候，大家都睇得出高普嘅心情寫晒喺塊面度。

The party, defined as “symbolic” and “powerful” had an element of toasting to Coutinho’s contribution at Liverpool, but at the same time, there was a sense of middle fingers flying in the direction of the doom decorating his departure.
有人事後形容果晚嘅派對好有象徵意義同力量。個Party其實亦都係為咗感謝古天奴對球隊嘅貢獻，但同時似乎大家都對佢嘅離開暗地裡媽聲四起。

Whatever followed, those present felt they were in this together. They believed in each other, in the roster, that the addition of Virgil van Dijk would make Liverpool stronger, that there was more than enough snarl as a collective to continue on an upward trajectory.
無論如何，出席嘅球員都感覺到大家喺同一條船。佢哋相信大家，而且相信雲迪克加盟之後隊波會更加強大，越踢越好。

That Klopp, above all, subscribed so religiously to this thinking translated into others sharing his conviction.
而高普就不斷將呢個信念向成班波洗腦。

Liverpool would not just be fine, Liverpool would be fucking flying.
利物浦唔只會掂，仲要係好撚掂。

Klopp was a portrait of confidence and composure, but the previous five months had been stressful for the former Borussia Dortmund trainer.
高普一直係自信同冷靜嘅化身。但過去5個月，呢位前多蒙特嘅領隊承受住好大壓力。

It went against his entire nature, heavily built around empathy, to see a player so sewn in distress. He treasured Coutinho professionally as well as personally and agonised over what the saga was doing to the Brazil international.
呢個同佢嘅天性相反。佢對古天奴受嘅巨大壓力充滿住同情，而且佢喺個人同足球層面都好欣賞古天奴，對於佢喺呢場轉會風波入面所受嘅折磨亦感同身受。

Klopp imagined what it was like for him at home. He was torn by the impact it was potentially having on his wife and young daughter.
高普曾經想像如果係佢自己，佢老婆同咁細個嘅女所受嘅影響，佢感到更加痛苦。

The manager knew how he'd feel if one of his own kids were going through that situation, or if his partner was being affected by it.
佢好明白如果係佢嘅仔女面對咁嘅情況，或者係佢老婆受到嘅影響會係幾咁大。

Part of Klopp’s weaponry is sagacity, drilling deep to appreciate what drives those that line up under him or work alongside him.
高普其中一個強項就係佢嘅睿智。佢識得深入了解幫佢做嘢嘅人，佢哋嘅動力來源係乜嘢。

That he knew Coutinho, who is quite sensitive and counts his family as his axis, was cheerless made him so too.
而佢知道，古天奴係一個多愁善感嘅人。佢嘅屋企人就係佢嘅世界，而呢點亦係點解佢咁唔開心。

The 50-year-old is often cast as the centrepiece, revelling in attention. He is charismatic, and so is more than comfortable getting on the dance floor or grabbing the mic to create a rhapsodic environment.
呢位50歲嘅教頭經常都成為大家嘅焦點。佢好有魅力，而且好擅長製造開心熱鬧嘅環境氣氛。

But those who know him best insist Klopp is happiest sitting off and shining the spotlight on the ones he cares about having a good time.
但熟悉佢嘅人會知道，其實佢最鍾意嘅係坐埋一邊，睇住佢珍重嘅人做返主角接受群眾嘅目光。

He loves witnessing the initiation tradition of a player singing a song in front of all his teammates.
佢好鍾意一個傳統，就係叫一個球員喺隊友面前唱歌。

He adores the environment the squad have carved between themselves and the way they have married the serious (a strict fine system) with the humorous - Dejan Lovren’s ‘gaffer’ social media undressing stands out after he revealed his Champions League half-time rallying call at Manchester City.
佢好喜歡球隊嘅氣氛，可以將嚴肅(嚴格嘅罰款制度)同幽默結合，例如路夫蘭就喺社交媒體同球迷分享佢喺對曼城果場波半場休息嘅時候做更衣室大佬嘅事。

Klopp can also spend hours on YouTube watching videos of joyous supporters and has noted multiple times this season that watching the crowd develop and truly connect with the team has been special.
高普亦都好鍾意上YouTube睇球迷嘅片。佢多次提到睇住球迷真正同球隊連結埋一齊嘅感覺好特別。

So to view the opposite - to see sadness plague Coutinho - was piercing.
相反，睇住古天奴所受嘅折磨，亦令高普無比痛苦。

As such, if the decision was solely Klopp’s to make, the No.10’s switch to Spain would have been sanctioned before the start of 2017-18.
正因為咁，如果畀高普話晒事，佢開季前就會將古天奴賣去西班牙。

Never thinking he is always right, and knowing what he personally felt was trivial when juxtaposed with the full picture, the German supported the reasoning of Edwards, Gordon and the ownership in general.
高普唔係一個覺得自覺永遠啱嘅人。佢知道自己嘅感覺都係好表面嘅，當佢將成個大局擺喺眼前，佢都同意Edwards，Gordon同老闆嘅諗法。

It did not make sense then, that when the only route available for Coutinho to secure an exit was to go antagonist, his camp targeted the manager in their press onslaught, which only hardened FSG’s stance.
離奇嘅係，當時古天奴一方要離隊嘅唯一可能性就只能夠擺爛個款，而佢哋嘅陣營竟然以高普作為攻擊對象，咁樣結果只係加強咗FSG唔賣嘅決心。

Klopp hid it well, but the falsehoods over his relationship with Liverpool’s “genius,” plus the player’s manufactured unhappiness at the club did hurt - especially as he continued to publicly fight his corner.
雖然高普無表現出嚟，但果啲關於佢同古天奴關係惡劣嘅流言同埋古天奴為球隊帶嚟嘅唔開心，的確係傷害咗高普，特別係高普仲要出嚟喺公眾面前辯護。

Coutinho’s performances post the saga, especially on the continent, may have been seen as a fait accompli, but to get him to feature in the Champions League at all was an achievement.
古天奴喺呢次事件後嘅表現，尤其喺歐聯賽場，有目共睹。但派佢喺歐聯出場呢件事本身就已經唔簡單。

When it became apparent there was absolutely no twisting of Liverpool’s arm, the threat of not representing the club in Europe was still strongly being advocated by his advisors.
當知道利物浦嘅立場非常堅定之後，古天奴嘅軍師就極力主張古天奴拒絕喺歐聯上陣。

Gordon and Edwards toiled to surgically remove that and Klopp began reintegrating Coutinho, a process made simpler by his protection of the wantaway star.
Gordon同Edwards好辛苦咁解決咗呢個問題，高普亦重新將古天奴擺返入球隊嘅戰術體制入面，而高普千方百計咁喺公眾面前保護古天奴亦都令呢件事更加容易。

Despite the heckling and suspicious inverted commas each time the ‘back injury’ that sidelined the midfielder in August was mentioned, Klopp never deviated from his line - even when the issue was “only emotional” according to Brazil’s doctor during an international break.
雖然8月嘅時候，古天奴因“背傷”的確惹嚟唔少懷疑，即使巴西軍醫都話佢嘅背傷只係情緒問題，但高普始終如一支持球員。

Squad harmony and ensuring there were no further hiccups to the start of the season was paramount for Klopp - he did not mind being the subject of ridicule, which drew mass respect from the dressing room.
球隊嘅和諧對高普嚟講最為重要。佢唔介意成為事情嘅主角，咁就可以令傳媒嘅焦點離開更衣室。

10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1…
Happy New Year!
新年快樂！

2018 had only just ticked in, but it entered with the same complexity and concern Liverpool had enjoyed a temporary break from.
2018年啱啱開始，同時標誌住呢個困擾住利物浦嘅問題喺短暫嘅休息之後又再出現。

Barcelona were not so much knocking on the door as they were smashing through it. Coutinho’s desire to leave had not diminished despite his excellence behind a supreme frontline and the club preparing for their first Champions League knockout fixture since 2009.
巴塞羅拿今次唔只係敲門，可以講係撞門。雖然古天奴上半季留喺利物浦表現出色，而球隊亦自2009年以嚟第一次打入歐聯淘汰賽，但佢離隊嘅慾望並無消失。

Liverpool did not want a repeat of the upheaval of the summer, but conversely, neither did they want to cede the Brazilian during such a positive juncture.
利物浦唔想重演上個夏天嘅劇情，但另一方面亦唔想喺呢個重要關頭失去古天奴。

Against the tide, they attempted to persuade him to stay until the end of the season on very lucrative terms - a deal now effective later. However, there was no budging from Barca’s end nor his: Coutinho had been on Merseyside for five years and he was adamant: it was time to say goodbye.
利物浦嘗試挽留古天奴，以先簽約後離隊嘅方式留到季尾。但無論巴塞定係古天奴都寸步不讓：佢已經喺度踢咗5年，佢非常堅決係時候離隊。

As the days ticked on and the eventuality of a sale became more pronounced, Gordon was hugely concerned that the uplifting tone around the club would morph into one of unrest. He was insistent that any abuse should be funnelled towards him and the ownership, shielding Klopp and the squad from toxicity.
當轉會勢在必行，Gordon非常擔心咁樣會為一切都穩步上揚嘅球隊帶嚟負面影響。佢堅持所有外界嘅責難都應該由佢同董事會承擔，高普同球員唔應該受到牽連。

Through this period, though, there was no calmer person at Melwood than the manager and there was no way he wouldn’t front up.
喺呢段期間，成個Melwood無人比高普更加冷靜，亦都無人可以阻止佢對住傳媒頂硬上。

Klopp demanded that everyone relax, that this was just a football transfer, and so they should treat it as such and nothing more.
高普要求所有球員保持放鬆，呢單只係普通嘅足球轉會，大家唔需要諗太多，

If Liverpool did not want any drama around it, then it was imperative that they did not create a spectacle themselves.
如果利物浦唔想事情繼續發酵，佢哋首先就要唔好自己製造新嘅話題。

It was a transaction, not a tombstone for the Reds’ season.
呢單只係一單普通嘅交易，隊波嘅球季仲未完嘅。

The most significant factor was how the squad would react to the development. The Magician was loved by his peers, but additionally, there had been an episode that played on Klopp’s mind.
最重要嘅係隊波點樣面對呢個轉變。隊友都好鍾意古天奴，而有件事喺高普心入面揮之不去。

One August afternoon, a desperate Coutinho approached the senior players’ committee and pencilled in a talk in one of the meeting rooms on Melwood’s ground tier.
早喺8月嘅時候，有一日古天奴喺Melwood一間會議室入面同球隊嘅“一隊球員委員會”開會。

He appealed to them to change the club’s mind, and while he knew the squad wanted him to stay, he also figured fellow professionals would recognise why he felt this was a ‘dream step’ that was critical to take.
佢希望球會可以改變決定。佢知道球隊希望佢留低，但佢亦深信隊友會明白佢為夢想而行嘅呢一步。

For all the chicanery that occurred during the summer window, it was the folding of his teammates into the fuss that most annoyed Klopp.
而最令高普擔憂嘅係其他隊友焦急嘅心情。

So when the deal was done and Coutinho was off, the manager rounded up the full group in the dressing room at the training complex and delivered an incisive address.
當轉會已成定局，高普召集所有球員，喺訓練場嘅更衣室向佢哋訓話。

The message was that they'd lost a great player and a friend, but it was no more than that. He told them to not give anyone on the outside a chance to say that Phil going has affected their season.
高普最主要嘅訊息係，佢哋係喪失咗一個好球員，但亦只係少咗一個好球員咁大把。最重要嘅係唔好畀外面嘅人有任何機會話古天奴嘅離開影響咗我哋嘅球季。

Klopp mentioned that the scrutiny would increase, but he didn't believe it would hamper Liverpool in a negative way. It was important for the team to believe the same, because if they allowed his exit to be an excuse, Liverpool were weak.
高普話佢相信出面嘅批評會越嚟越多，但佢唔覺得球隊會受到任何負面影響。隊波一定要有呢個信念，呢樣係好重要，否則如果球隊畀呢樣嘢成為藉口，咁利物浦就太軟弱。

He reminded his players they could decide whether people said their collective genius had walked out the door with Coutinho.
高普提醒球員，佢哋有能力話畀全世界知道，佢哋加埋嘅力量係咪都畀古天奴一個拎走晒。

/"This is us. On we go."
丟那媽 頂硬上/

Liverpool had anticipated a thunderstorm, and when the whistle for the interval went at the Etihad, they were relieved for the respite from Manchester City’s electric onslaught.
利物浦預咗場波會好難踢，而當半場嘅哨子聲響起嘅時候，佢哋即刻鬆一口氣，可以暫時忘記曼城喺主場瘋狂嘅攻勢。

The scoreline was only 1-0 to Pep Guardiola’s men on the night, and still 3-1 to the visitors on aggregate in the Champions League quarter-finals, but those first 45 minutes were punishing.
比數只係1-0，對於作客嘅利物浦嚟講兩回合計仲係領先緊3-1。但呢45分鐘嘅歐聯八強可以話係一種折磨。

Klopp’s half-time routine is consistent home and away. He speeds from the touchline to the dressing room, takes off his jacket and convenes with assistant coach Peter Krawietz, who has selected crucial in-match clips along with analysts Harrison Kingston and Mark Leyland.
高普每次嘅半場休息都係一樣，主場同作客都係。佢會由球場跑入更衣室，除咗件外套，集合埋已經剪好咗上半場精華嘅助教Peter Krawietz，同埋兩位分析員，Harrison Kingston 同 Mark Leyland。

The footage they slice is never usually of a goal being conceded or scored, but examples of how to avoid the former or ensure the latter by highlighting the positioning of the defensive line or where the best offensive spaces are.
佢哋揀嘅片通常都唔係重溫失波或者入波，而係講解防線嘅企位點樣防止失波，同埋點樣利用進攻嘅空位爭取入波。

At City, there was a deviation. Lovren had been shouting, telling the team to ‘wake up,’ that they weren’t showing enough belief and were allowing Kevin De Bruyne and co to do as they please.
而今次嚟到曼城，情況有啲唔同。路夫蘭大聲喝醒班隊友，話佢哋信心唔夠同埋畀迪布尼太多空位。

Klopp pounced on this as the perfect opening for his own message and so he broke away from his normal process, allowing the centre-back to speak for just under a minute before then commanding the room.
高普覺得呢個會係一個好好嘅開場白，所以佢畀咗大概1分鐘路夫蘭講佢要講嘅嘢。

He started by agreeing with the Croatian, before pointing at Lovren and Van Dijk, saying they were killing the team by being too deep.
之後輪到高普，佢首先同意路夫蘭嘅講法，然後就話路夫蘭同雲迪克逗得太深，令場波好難踢。

He then calmly got his crucial information over: get higher, condense the pitch and stop City playing the passes that feed their strengths.
然後佢好冷靜咁指示球員：逗前啲，企密啲，唔好畀曼城咁多空位做波。

In possession, relax, orientate yourselves better and speed it up. He pointed out spaces available to break City’s press, helping Liverpool retain the ball and thwart the hosts’ constant flow of attacks.
控球果時保持冷靜，轉身然後加速。善用進攻空位突破曼城嘅迫搶，亦都可以減慢曼城嘅進攻。

Klopp then highlighted Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain’s chance at the end of the first half as the memory that would be playing on loop in the home dressing room.
佢特別提到張伯倫臨完半場前嘅一次機會。

He stressed that City had just seen what Liverpool were capable of and it would be terrifying them as all it would've taken was one successful attack to scorch Guardiola's charges.
佢話呢球畀曼城睇到利物浦嘅實力，而佢哋先應該係驚果一隊，因為我哋一次成功嘅進攻佢哋就玩完。

There was an element of 'so what the fuck are we doing still sitting here?' as he ordered them to go out and get back on the front foot.
“咁仲坐喺度做乜鳩吖”高普就趕咗隊波出球場準備。

While City were engulfed by the emotion of the occasion with Guardiola getting sent off at half-time, Liverpool used the break to reorganise.
當曼城仍然因為哥迪奧拿半場被趕離場而激動，利物浦就借呢個時候重整旗鼓。

Klopp’s ability to cut through everything and communicate concisely was visible through the first passage of play in which his side strung five to six consecutive passes together.
高普講解戰術嘅能力可以由利物浦下半場第一個攻勢連續五六下靚傳就睇到。

It culminated in Mohamed Salah’s opener on 56 minutes that effectively ended the tie, after Gini Wijnaldum fed Oxlade-Chamberlain.
利物浦好快就得到回報。56分鐘，韋拿度姆傳畀張伯倫，最後由沙拿射入，賽事就基本上大局已定。

The England international dissected City to supply the Egyptian, who along with Sadio Mane had worked to isolate and unsettle Aymeric Laporte, Fernandinho and Nicolas Otamendi as per instruction.
張伯倫劏穿咗曼城嘅防線，畀沙拿配合文尼，根據高普嘅指示搞掂咗拿撲迪，費蘭甸奴同奧達文迪。

Klopp is forever examined through his magnetism, but not his methods. People see the cool as fuck figure with his unkept stubble in a hoody and trainers, but not the tactical nerd obsessed with preparation and details.
高普最吸引人嘅係佢嘅魅力而唔係佢嘅教波或者戰術。大家睇到嘅高普都係著住運動衫同埋有一頭混亂嘅短髮，同果啲執著於準備戰術部署嘅大師風格完全唔同。

The storyline is dictated by the hugs, fist pumps and rantings, but should be about the composed leader, who is able to read the room and never ducks a big call.
完場嘅一刻充滿住擁抱，碰拳同埋咆哮。但係唔能夠遺忘嘅係呢位永不退縮嘅領袖。

Liverpool need only a point to secure Champions League football heading into the final top-flight game of the season against Brighton? Ok then, he'll just pick four attackers.
利物浦只需要喺白禮頓身上拎到1分就足夠確保下季歐聯參賽資格？無問題，出四個前鋒囉。

There is a misconception too that Klopp’s management is punctuated by Hollywood moments, that ‘Any Given Sunday’ type zingers are delivered on a daily.
大家都有個誤會，就係喺高普嘅領導之下，呢啲本應喺荷李活先出現嘅誇張劇情好似每日都會上演。

To this point, Andy Robertson and Oxlade-Chamberlain are often asked “what did Klopp say to you when things weren’t going well at the start of your Liverpool career?”
就住呢點，羅拔臣同張伯倫都曾經分別被問到“高普喺你哋啱啱加盟，表現唔係咁好嘅時候，同你哋講過啲咩？”

There is no cinematographic answer as there were no elaborate meetings or ground-shifting discussions.
無任何驚喜嘅答案，因為根本就無任何特別嘅對話或者照肺。

He told them to continue as they were, put in the work, and the time would come, things would align.
高普只係叫佢哋繼續努力，時機會嚟到，所有嘢就會好順利。

Klopp believes there is no point ballooning something beyond what it actually is, and that often, the best decision to take is none at all.
高普覺得，有時一動不如一靜。

He figures having ‘the talk’ can be self-indulgent and self-serving at times. If there is no certain benefit to a player, what exactly is the point?
佢覺得有時呢啲所謂對話，即係照肺，根本幫唔到球員，晒氣。

And if there is no massive issue, with the criticism existing externally, why should Klopp feed the notion that there is a problem by formally addressing it?
如果根本就無乜問題，只係外界係度亂咁批評，咁何必太認真看待？

Take Mane for example, who was slightly off colour for a period, snatching a little too much and overthinking every action.
以文尼為例，佢有段時間的確係失色咗啲，獨食咗啲，有啲決定慢咗啲。

In general, though, the speedster was still a threat, still being decisive and still ensuring that the front three functioned exceptionally while adding to his defensive duties.
但整體嚟講，佢仍然係前場一個威脅，仍然係決定性嘅，加上佢喺防守嘅貢獻，確保三把尖刀可以各自發揮作用。

There was never a big sit down with the Senegal international, simply a brief sort of ‘What’s up? Stop beating yourself up about any mistakes, I am very happy with you.’
高普從來都無坐低同文尼傾過啲咩問題，最多都只係“喂，唔使咁躁，你踢得好吖我好滿意。”

Mane found his own way through his stifled spell, aided by a sprinkling of encouragement rather than a lengthy tactical dissection.
文尼最後都走出低潮，靠嘅只係少少嘅鼓勵，而唔需要長篇大論嘅戰術分析。

Klopp doesn’t hesitate to assume control when a situation demands it - see Mamadou Sakho as a reference - but he dictates when necessary, not out of ego nor as an act.
當然，如果有需要，高普會毫不猶豫手起刀落介入問題，沙高就係一個例子。但佢只會喺客觀情況有必要嘅時候先會咁，而絕對唔係自我中心。

October 8, 2015
2015年10月8號

At Hope Street Hotel in Liverpool’s city centre, those who would now work closely with the club’s new manager were offered insight into the character behind the established caricature.
喺利物浦市中心嘅希望街設計酒店(Hope Street Hotel)，一班而家同高普緊密合作嘅伙記當時就第一次見識到呢位領隊。

After Klopp signed a three-year deal worth an estimated £7m per season in the Sixth Boardroom, where Rafa Benitez had also ratified a contract with the club in 2004, he gathered the football staff for dinner.
高普同球會簽咗3年，每年值7百萬鎊嘅合約。佢簽約嘅地方同2004年賓尼迪斯同利物浦簽約嘅地方一樣。簽約之後，高普就約咗成班職員食晚飯。

Some expected a rousing speech from the German, others assumed it would be the introduction to Jurgen’s Law.
大家都預期高普會發表激勵嘅演說，或者先小人後君子講下自己帶波嘅規矩。

Instead, Klopp spoke very little, inviting everyone to tell him about themselves, their roles and how things worked at Liverpool - from training schedules to the matchday routine. He wanted to absorb as much information as possible.
但結果，高普無乜點講嘢。佢邀請所有人分別介紹自己，佢啲嘅崗位同職責，由訓練日程到比賽日嘅運作，佢都想知道多啲。

When it was time to talk through the media plan for his unveiling, Klopp was asked about his preferences when dealing with press. “No, no,” he responded, underlining that this was the communication team's field and they were the experts.
當講到應對媒體方面，高普話呢個係公關團隊嘅範疇同專業。

They had to tell him how it should be. They had to teach him.
佢會等佢哋指導佢點做。

One of the Stuttgart native’s gifts is trusting and turning to the people he works with, previously stating “I’m not a one-man show. I was never that in my life, and I never want to be that. The best lesson you can get in a day - to speak to smart people about things they know about much more about than you do.”
高普其中一樣天賦就係對人嘅信任。“我唔係單打獨鬥嘅人，我從來都唔係。每日最好嘅事就係同聰明嘅人傾計，聽佢哋講一啲佢哋比你叻好多嘅嘢。”

It is why when recruitment continuously pushed Salah to the forefront of the agenda for Liverpool’s incomings, Klopp co-signed their expertise.
咁就解釋咗點解當球探極力推薦沙拿嘅時候，高普毫不猶豫就投下信任一票。

He is across everything, but respects staff who take responsibility for their spheres of influence and are bold enough to settle on important decisions without informing him of each small detail.
高普好尊重所有同事喺佢哋自己嘅範疇工作，而且可以勇敢啲做決定，唔使事無大小都問准佢。

Klopp surrounds himself with strong personalities, and as such, perhaps that partly explains why his long-time assistant and friend, Zeljko Buvac, is expected to leave the club at the end of the season.
高普身邊有好多叻人一齊做嘢。或者正因為咁，佢嘅長期拍檔，Zeljko Buvac 預計將會係季尾離隊。

The Bosnian-Serb has been missing from the first-team fold since the end of April due to ‘personal reasons,’ and while no clarity has been offered on the situation, there is thought to be an element of discontent for Buvac over his standing in football.
呢位助教自從4月尾就因為私人理由缺席一隊嘅活動。外界盛傳其中一個原因係佢唔滿意自己喺對足球方面嘅意見唔夠被重視，而呢個傳聞亦一直無被正式澄清。

That his absence has not affected Liverpool behind the scenes is a nod to the strength of the individuals in the backroom team.
佢嘅缺席對利物浦影響似乎唔大正好證明球隊背後支援嘅團隊實力洪厚。

It is a strand that runs through the playing personnel as well, with proof in the non-upheaval following Coutinho’s winter departure.
呢點同球員喺古天奴離隊後嘅穩定表現有異曲同工之妙。

Just as the footballers have happily assumed more responsibility, so too have the coaching and support staff.
正如其他球員樂於承擔更多責任，職員亦都一樣。

“Incredibly healthy” has been a label used to describe the overall set-up at Melwood and when you consider the seamless adjustment of Van Dijk and Salah, it seems an accurate assessment.
有人形容Melwood 嘅分工安排係“非常健康”。當你睇到雲迪克同沙拿都可以咁快適應球隊，呢個講法似乎千真萬確。

Meanwhile, players that took a while to find their stride, like Robertson and Oxlade-Chamberlain, never felt walled off.
同時，一啲需要多啲時間適應嘅球員，例如羅拔臣同張伯倫，都無感到被遺忘。

Klopp empowered Henderson to cultivate the dressing room culture and the captain has promoted a togetherness many within the West Derby facility say they haven’t encountered before.
高普吩咐軒達臣負責更衣室裡面嘅氣氛同文化，而大家都認同呢位隊長為球隊帶嚟前所未有嘅團結。

The bond extends beyond the team to the non-football staff, who are part of the fabric of the place too. This is so much so, that even when players leave the fondness lingers.
呢股團結力量亦擴展至其他職員，甚至乎有啲球員離隊後仍然維持住對球隊嘅感情。

When Liverpool travelled to Rome for the second leg of their Champions League semi-final, Lucas Leiva sent back a surprise for popular canteen pairing Carol Farrell and Caroline Guest - signed Lazio shirts with a personal message for both.
當利物浦作客羅馬嘅時候，盧卡斯利華就準備咗拉素簽名波衫作為驚喜禮物送畀一對飯堂孖寶，Carol Farrel 同 Caroline Guest。

Meanwhile, it is in their domain - the dinning room - where Klopp and Edwards often strategise over breakfast or lunch beyond the more in-depth presentations on players. The duo, who both employ an open-door policy, enjoy an effortless relationship underpinned by mutual respect.
高普同Edwards經常都去到飯堂踩場，趁住食早餐或者午餐嘅時間，向球員做戰術指導。呢對飯堂孖寶都表示門常開，非常之歡迎大家。

And while the sporting director keeps a low profile as he prefers to do his job rather than talk about it, allowing him to make moves under the radar at times, Klopp appreciates that he is distinguished in his field and very decisive.
我哋嘅體育總監比較鍾意低調，不受注目，而高普就非常欣賞佢，喺佢嘅範疇十分之出色，亦好果斷。

The Reds boss is never shy to talk up the brilliance of the recruitment group, who are backed by a stellar research team run by Ian Graham.
高普亦毫不吝惜對由Ian Graham帶領嘅球探團隊嘅讚美。

And while Edwards is not the type to seek credit, Liverpool’s forward line - the most devastating in Europe this season - is largely his sketch.
雖然Edwards並唔鍾意領功，但其實利物浦而家嘅前場三叉戟，好大程度係佢嘅功勞。

Gordon assesses the dovetailing between the pair as a core canon for the club’s success. Klopp appreciates Edwards’ intelligence in assembling a team to effectively implement his aggressive blueprint, while the transfer chief is aware that signing a top player is purposeless without a top manager to extract every inch of their talent.
Gordon覺得兩人之間嘅合作係球會成功嘅重要武器。高普欣賞Edwards可以砌到隊波啱佢用，而呢位轉會話事人亦明白，幾好嘅球員都需要一個優秀嘅領隊先可以發揮所長。

The way the Reds have vaporised teams on the continent this season with their attacking venom has seen a spike in agents calling up to ascertain if there’d be any interest in their exciting clients.
利物浦今季令人聞風喪膽嘅表現令唔少經理人都蠢蠢欲動，想睇下利物浦對佢哋嘅球員有無興趣。

Liverpool are now the running train.
利物浦而家可以話係如日方中。

/'I could see myself here for the rest of my career'
我覺得自己淨低嘅職業生涯都會喺呢度。/

FSG were convinced, but how could they not have been? For nearly five years, he was the one: the ownership’s ideal manager, who remained just out of reach.
FSG都好有信心。等咗將近5年，佢就係管理層心儀嘅領隊人選。

In October 2015, however, he had finally become their one - Liverpool’s Jurgen Klopp.
2015年10月，高普終於成為利物浦領隊。

But it was only on a three-year deal. He had never lived outside of Germany, let alone managed in a different country, and while there were no doubts over his status as The Perfect Fit on the club’s end, Klopp was mindful of the adaptation both he and his family would have to undertake.
但當時佢只係簽咗一份3年嘅合約。佢從來未試過喺德國以外居住，更加唔好講帶一隊德國以外嘅球隊。雖然球會對高普充滿信心，但佢就難免顧慮佢同屋企人適應嘅問題。

The contract represented a realistic scenario rather than a romantic one. During a relaxed conversation in June 2016, however, he remarked that he could imagine being at Liverpool for the rest of his managerial career to Gordon.
合約終歸係現實嘅。之後喺2016年，佢提到自己可能可以將淨低嘅執教生涯都放係利物浦。

That put in motion an instant process to lock Klopp in after a quick discussion with principle owner John Henry and chairman Tom Werner.
球隊即刻事不宜遲，同老闆John Henry同主席Tom Werner簡單討論之後，就立即著手準備留住高普。

Within a matter of hours, fresh terms had been thrashed out with the manager’s agent, Marc Kosicke, and a new six-year deal was agreed.
話咁快，新合約就預備好，喺高普經理人Marc Kosicke嘅協助下，高普簽咗一份6年嘅合約。

Klopp had been on holiday in Ibiza before ferrying over to Formentera, the smallest of Spain’s Balearic islands in the Mediterranean Sea.
當時，高普正喺西班牙伊維薩島(Ibiza)放緊大假，佢之後再飛到地中海嘅福門特拉島(Formentera)繼續行程。

And on June 16, as he celebrated his 49th birthday, he also toasted signing on until 2022, with the news only being announced at the start of pre-season the following month.
喺6月16號，當佢慶祝緊49歲生日嘅同時，佢亦正式簽約擔任利物浦領隊直至2022年，而呢個好消息一直等到臨開季先向外公佈。

/"When you have an individual of Jurgen's quality in the building it makes perfect sense to secure that person for the long term. To not do so would be irresponsible."
“當你有一個好似高普咁有能力嘅人帶領球隊，無理由唔同佢簽份長約，否則係對球隊不負責任”/

Long before Henry, Werner and Gordon had first met with Klopp on October 1 2015 at the New York law offices of Shearman & Sterling, they had done extensive homework on his credentials.
遠喺Henry，Werner同Gordon第一次同高普喺2015年10月1號喺紐約一間律師樓見面之前，佢哋已經對高普做咗好多功課。

It was obvious that he was charming and a unifying figure, but they sharply realised there was endless substance beyond the soundbites and mad-scientist smile.
好明顯高普係一個有魅力而有凝聚力嘅人物，但佢哋好快就發現高普嘅功力唔只咁簡單。

Liverpool had craved a recognisable identity and here was a bonafide architect; a man worshipped in Mainz and Dortmund for his remarkable design work.
利物浦有令人景仰嘅歷史同身分，而高普正正就係一個優秀嘅建築師，佢喺緬因斯同多蒙特嘅出色表現已經係好好嘅證明。

They spoke for hours at the high-rise building on Lexington Avenue in Manhattan, chewing over everything from playing style to reawakening the fan base and reconvened the following day for further talks.
佢哋果日傾咗好耐。由球隊踢法到球迷覺醒，佢哋甚至好傾到要約定第二日繼續傾。

Klopp had made one particular point with regularity: Liverpool should be a force in Europe. And they could be. He would work to get them back amongst Europe’s elite, and moreover, as being the kind of team no-one wanted to face in the Champions League.
高普提出咗一點：利物浦應該，而且可以喺歐洲有一席位。佢會令球隊重返歐洲前列，而且會令利物浦成為喺歐聯無人想對碰嘅隊伍。

In a matter of months after arriving in Liverpool, he had guided the club to the Europa League final eliminating Manchester United, Dortmund and Villarreal en route before falling short against Sevilla at the showpiece in Basel.
嚟到利物浦未夠1年，高普就帶領球隊先後淘汰曼聯，多蒙特同維拉利爾，殺入歐霸盃決賽，可惜喺巴塞爾輸咗畀西維爾。

In his first full season at the helm, Klopp’s side secured a fourth-place finish and a crack at Champions League football for only the second time in eight seasons.
喺佢嘅第一季英超，佢就成功殺入前四，拎到來季歐聯參賽資格。呢個只係利物浦近8年嚟第2次。

And having navigated a tricky qualifier against Hoffenheim last August to enter the group phase of the tournament, Liverpool are in now in its final and will be at the continent’s top table again next season.
而今季，先喺外圍賽淘汰賀芬咸，再經過分組賽，利物浦而家已經嚟到歐聯決賽，而且已經穩奪下年嘅歐聯參賽資格。

Whatever happens against Real Madrid in Kiev, Liverpool’s advancement is unarguable.
無論喺基輔對皇家馬德里嘅決賽結果係點，利物浦嘅進步都係有目共睹。

Rewinding to Hong Kong, that they have made it here - one objective boxed off, one well surpassed - through the disruption, the injuries and the sale of Coutinho mid-season, is masterful.
回帶重溫由香港開始嘅球季，經歷風風雨雨，古天奴離隊同埋傷兵滿營，最終前四目標達到，歐聯之路令人驚喜。

Liverpool have the opportunity to be the ultimate conquerers of Europe this season having already dispatched Porto, Manchester City and Roma, smashing scoring records en route to the NSC Olimpiyskiy Stadium.
利物浦先後闖過波圖，曼城同羅馬，向住奧林匹克國家綜合體育場進發，有機會成為歐洲嘅盟主。

Most significantly though, there is a wealth of confidence within the club that this will not be a rarity, that spellbinding nights under Anfield’s lights will become a divine right again.
而最重要嘅係，球會上下充滿信心，今季嘅成績唔係偶然，以後仍然陸續有嚟。

They believe Liverpool will not just be fine, Liverpool will be fucking flying.
佢哋相信，利物浦唔單止會掂，仲會係好撚掂。

原文連結：