LCC v. LTLA

LCC v. LTLA

The court found on the evidence that MIL, WEL and SEHL were materially mingled and integrated during a 30-year marriage so all three companies are matrimonial assets; the Husband engaged in wanton and reckless gambling dissipating HK$96,590,486 which must be added back to the matrimonial pot; the post-separation director's loans are not the Wife's liability and the Husband failed to account for most of them; applying the sharing principle and balancing monetization risk, the court ordered a lump sum of HK$292,000,000 to the Wife (split approximately 49.5% Wife : 50.5% Husband) payable in staged instalments with specified undertakings

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 1922
Parties
Petitioner (wife): LCC; Respondent (husband): LTLA
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 June 2022
Case Number
HCMC4/2019
Procedural Posture
Matrimonial Causes Ancillary Relief / Trial Judgment (ancillary Relief)
Outcome
Judgment for Petitioner (Wife): companies held matrimonial; add-back of HK$96,590,486; Wife not liable for post-separation loans save limited accounted items; lump sum award to Wife of HK$292,000,000; overall division 49.5% Wife : 50.5% Husband
Legal Topics
Add Back Order, Sharing Principle, Non Matrimonial Asset, Director's Loans, Valuation of Insolvent Companies, Lump Sum Order, Conduct in Ancillary Relief, Liquidation Jurisdiction
Source Language
EN
Family Law Matrimonial Property Ancillary Relief Company Law Civil Procedure Add Back Order Sharing Principle Non Matrimonial Asset +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LCC

Petitioner (wife)

LTLA

Respondent (husband)

Procedural Posture

Matrimonial Causes Ancillary Relief / Trial Judgment (ancillary Relief)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether SEHL, MIL and WEL are matrimonial assets or pre-marital/non-matrimonial
  2. 2 Whether HK$96.59 million gambling losses should be added back to the matrimonial pot
  3. 3 Whether ~HK$90 million of post-separation director's loans should be shared

Ratio Decidendi

The court found on the evidence that MIL, WEL and SEHL were materially mingled and integrated during a 30-year marriage so all three companies are matrimonial assets; the Husband engaged in wanton and reckless gambling dissipating HK$96,590,486 which must be added back to the matrimonial pot; the post-separation director's loans are not the Wife's liability and the Husband failed to account for most of them; applying the sharing principle and balancing monetization risk, the court ordered a lump sum of HK$292,000,000 to the Wife (split approximately 49.5% Wife : 50.5% Husband) payable in staged instalments with specified undertakings

Court Disposition

Judgment for Petitioner (Wife): companies held matrimonial; add-back of HK$96,590,486; Wife not liable for post-separation loans save limited accounted items; lump sum award to Wife of HK$292,000,000; overall division 49.5% Wife : 50.5% Husband

Orders

  • W Husband to pay Wife lump sum HK$292,000,000 in instalments: HK$10,000,000 within 14 days; HK$94,000,000 within 14 days; HK$94,000,000 by 19 October 2022; HK$94,000,000 by 19 April 2023 (includes transfer of House 15)
  • SEHL to transfer House 15 (former matrimonial home) to Wife free of encumbrances on date of payment of last instalment; Husband to procure same