F v. F

F v. F

Court held it was bound by local authority C v C and therefore could not fully adopt White v White as overriding precedent, but applied the statutory s.7(1)/(2)/(3) factors to reach a fair outcome: A was not a child of the family for s.7(3) relief; marriage duration calculated from marriage to separation (4 years 3 months); wife entitled to a clean break package to meet lifetime needs given childcare responsibilities and health; used Duxbury capitalisation with an industry standard assumed real rate of return of 4.25% producing a HK$25 million capitalised annuity component; total awards to wife rounded to HK$56.03 million and child J maintenance ordered at HK$30,000 per month.

Citation
F v. F
Parties
Petitioner: F (Petitioner); Respondent: F (Respondent)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 January 2003
Case Number
HCMC4/2001
Procedural Posture
Matrimonial Causes / Ancillary Relief (divorce) / Final Judgment (ancillary Relief Hearing)
Outcome
Ancillary relief granted to petitioner (clean break and child maintenance) with declarations and liberty to apply; costs reserved
Legal Topics
Clean Break Orders, Duxbury Calculation, White V White Principles Vs Reasonable Requirements, Child of the Family Status, Pre‑nuptial/ante‑nuptial Arrangements, Cohabitation and Duration, Role of Conduct in Ancillary Relief
Source Language
EN
Family Law Matrimonial Property Ancillary Relief Child Maintenance Trusts and Inheritance Clean Break Orders Duxbury Calculation White V White Principles Vs Reasonable Requirements +4 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 7 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F (Petitioner)

Petitioner

F (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Matrimonial Causes / Ancillary Relief (divorce) / Final Judgment (ancillary Relief Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Hong Kong court should follow White v White or remain bound by C v C (reasonable requirements)
  2. 2 Whether the non‑biological child A remains a child of the family for s.7(3) relief
  3. 3 Proper calculation of duration of marriage and whether pre‑marital cohabitation counts

Ratio Decidendi

Court held it was bound by local authority C v C and therefore could not fully adopt White v White as overriding precedent, but applied the statutory s.7(1)/(2)/(3) factors to reach a fair outcome: A was not a child of the family for s.7(3) relief; marriage duration calculated from marriage to separation (4 years 3 months); wife entitled to a clean break package to meet lifetime needs given childcare responsibilities and health; used Duxbury capitalisation with an industry standard assumed real rate of return of 4.25% producing a HK$25 million capitalised annuity component; total awards to wife rounded to HK$56.03 million and child J maintenance ordered at HK$30,000 per month.

Court Disposition

Ancillary relief granted to petitioner (clean break and child maintenance) with declarations and liberty to apply; costs reserved

Orders

  • Husband to pay HK$30,000 per month to wife for child J from 1 February 2003 until J is self‑supporting or further order
  • Husband to pay wife HK$20,000,000 for purchase of a Hong Kong home