W v. H AND ANOTHER

W v. H AND ANOTHER

C v C's limiting doctrine of reasonable requirements is no longer to be treated as the governing law in Hong Kong; Hong Kong courts should apply the English sharing principle (White and subsequent authorities) informed by constitutional equality provisions; the husband made dispositions to the Family Trust and Charitable Foundation with the intention of defeating the wife’s claim under s17 MPPO (entitling her to relief), but formal s17 dismantling orders are reserved; applying sharing, needs and compensation broadly the wife is entitled to 35% of the matrimonial assets and the husband must pay a lump sum of HKD 49,100,000 within 42 days to give the wife 35% of total assets.

Citation
W v. H AND ANOTHER
Parties
Petitioner: W; 1st Respondent: H; 2nd Respondent: Z
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 February 2008
Case Number
HCMC1/2006
Procedural Posture
Matrimonial Causes (ancillary Relief) / Judgment (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Judgment for the Petitioner. Court rejects continued application of C v C reasonable‑requirements ceiling; finds dispositions to Family Trust and Charitable Foundation made with intent to defeat wife’s claim (s17 MPPO) and reserves formal s17 dismantling orders; orders husband to pay wife a lump sum to achieve 35%...
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Division of Matrimonial Property, S17 MPPO Avoidance of Dispositions, Sharing Principle Vs Reasonable Requirements, Duxbury Calculation, Piercing Corporate Veil, Equal Protection/non‑discrimination
Source Language
EN
Family Law Matrimonial Finance Trusts and Succession Property Law Constitutional/human Rights Law Taxation Law Ancillary Relief Division of Matrimonial Property +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 6 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

W

Petitioner

H

1st Respondent

Z

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Matrimonial Causes (ancillary Relief) / Judgment (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether C v C [1990] remains binding in Hong Kong and whether the reasonable requirements approach still applies
  2. 2 Whether Hong Kong should adopt the English sharing principle as stated in White v White and subsequent authorities
  3. 3 Whether dispositions to the Charitable Foundation, Family Trust and retirement scheme were made with the intention of defeating the wife’s claim under s17 MPPO

Ratio Decidendi

C v C's limiting doctrine of reasonable requirements is no longer to be treated as the governing law in Hong Kong; Hong Kong courts should apply the English sharing principle (White and subsequent authorities) informed by constitutional equality provisions; the husband made dispositions to the Family Trust and Charitable Foundation with the intention of defeating the wife’s claim under s17 MPPO (entitling her to relief), but formal s17 dismantling orders are reserved; applying sharing, needs and compensation broadly the wife is entitled to 35% of the matrimonial assets and the husband must pay a lump sum of HKD 49,100,000 within 42 days to give the wife 35% of total assets.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Petitioner. Court rejects continued application of C v C reasonable‑requirements ceiling; finds dispositions to Family Trust and Charitable Foundation made with intent to defeat wife’s claim (s17 MPPO) and reserves formal s17 dismantling orders; orders husband to pay wife a lump sum to achieve 35%...

Orders

  • Husband to pay Wife a lump sum of HKD 49,100,000 within 42 days of judgment
  • Order nisi as to costs: each party to bear their own costs (no order as to costs at present)