WYSL v. FHCBA

WYSL v. FHCBA

Judge found on the evidence the Disputed Properties were beneficially held for the Father/the Estate not as gifts to the Husband; the Husband's interest in the discretionary Trust was not a current resource; therefore the s.17 Application to set aside dispositions was dismissed and did not alter the asset pool; on s.7 exercise the Wife's needs were met by a lump sum award of HKD 24,000,000 payable within four months; costs orders were made accordingly.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1543
Parties
Petitioner: WYSL; Respondent: FHCBA; 1st Intervener: FHTEJ; 2nd Intervener: FHTEJ; 3rd Intervener: LKPR
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 July 2018
Case Number
HCMC8/2016
Procedural Posture
Matrimonial Ancillary Relief / Trial Judgment (court of First Instance)
Outcome
s.17 Application dismissed; ancillary relief awarded to Petitioner
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Section 17 Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance, Disposition of Property, Discretionary Trust (charman Test), Beneficial Ownership, Valuation of Life Interest, Needs and Sharing, Costs
Source Language
EN
Family Law Matrimonial Property Trusts Property Law Probate and Estates Ancillary Relief Section 17 Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance Disposition of 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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WYSL

Petitioner

FHCBA

Respondent

FHTEJ

1st Intervener

FHTEJ

2nd Intervener

LKPR

3rd Intervener

Procedural Posture

Matrimonial Ancillary Relief / Trial Judgment (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Disputed Properties were beneficially owned by the Husband or held for the Father/Estate
  2. 2 Whether dispositions fall within s.17 and were made with intention to defeat the Wife's claim
  3. 3 Whether setting aside dispositions would lead to different financial provision for the Wife

Ratio Decidendi

Judge found on the evidence the Disputed Properties were beneficially held for the Father/the Estate not as gifts to the Husband; the Husband's interest in the discretionary Trust was not a current resource; therefore the s.17 Application to set aside dispositions was dismissed and did not alter the asset pool; on s.7 exercise the Wife's needs were met by a lump sum award of HKD 24,000,000 payable within four months; costs orders were made accordingly.

Court Disposition

s.17 Application dismissed; ancillary relief awarded to Petitioner

Orders

  • Lump sum payment of HKD 24000000 by the Husband to the Wife payable within 4 months (liberty to apply)
  • Order nisi that the costs of the ancillary proceedings be to the Wife, certificate for two counsel; credit HKD 3440000 already paid by the Husband to the Wife as legal costs provision