LEMS v. LCTN

LEMS v. LCTN

Leave to appeal was refused because the wife conceded that parental and grandparental financial assistance was not forthcoming, the trial judge reasonably assessed the wife's needs (HK$60,000 per month) and correctly concluded a clean break was appropriate; a speculative future inheritance not in the foreseeable future should not be treated as a resource, so there is no reasonable prospect of success on appeal.

Citation
LEMS v. LCTN
Parties
Petitioner (appellant): LEMS; Respondent (respondent): LCTN
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 December 2014
Case Number
HCMP2237/2014
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings (ancillary Relief / Leave to Appeal) / Application for Leave to Appeal to Court of Appeal After Trial (leave Refused Below)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Clean Break, Periodic Payments, Reasonable Needs Assessment, Future Inheritance as Resource, Leave to Appeal
Source Language
EN
Family Law Matrimonial Property Ancillary Relief Inheritance Clean Break Periodic Payments Reasonable Needs Assessment Future Inheritance as Resource +1 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LEMS

Petitioner (appellant)

LCTN

Respondent (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Proceedings (ancillary Relief / Leave to Appeal) / Application for Leave to Appeal to Court of Appeal After Trial (leave Refused Below)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against refusal to make a nominal periodic payment
  2. 2 Whether a prospective future inheritance (not in foreseeable future) must be treated as a financial resource in ancillary relief
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in assessing the wife's reasonable needs (HK$60,000 per month)

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the wife conceded that parental and grandparental financial assistance was not forthcoming, the trial judge reasonably assessed the wife's needs (HK$60,000 per month) and correctly concluded a clean break was appropriate; a speculative future inheritance not in the foreseeable future should not be treated as a resource, so there is no reasonable prospect of success on appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed