Hong Kong Judgment

Family Court

HYF v. CSL

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Leave to appeal refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success; the trial judge properly assessed assets on the available evidence, correctly found insufficient evidence of beneficial ownership and of specific double-counting, and there was no interest of justice reason to hear the appeal; consequently no stay and costs awarded to respondent.

Court disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed; stay of execution refused; costs awarded against applicant

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused
  • Application for stay of execution refused
  • Petitioner\'s amended summons dated 28 September 2024 re-filed 3 February 2025 dismissed
  • Costs of the application to be paid by the Petitioner to the Respondent, to be taxed if not agreed

02

Material facts

Parties

HYF

Petitioner Counsel: Ms Bonnie Y.K. Cheng and Mr Jonathan Fung instructed by Ho & Ip

CSL

Respondent Counsel: Mr Enzo Chow and Ms Esther Leung instructed by Chong & Partners LLP

Amounts and remedies

  • RMB Compensation Referenced in Assets: RMB 30,000,000

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Matrimonial Causes / Application for Leave to Appeal and Stay of Execution (district Court Decision)

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Applicant argued the judge erred in valuation of assets due to inadequate assessment, wrongly concluded insufficient evidence of respondent's beneficial ownership of Dong Fang Ju Hotel, wrongly found petitioner secreted sale proceeds of Ming Yue Road Property, and that requiring lump sum payment within 28 days was impractical given most assets were real property.
Respondent
Respondent relied on the judge's finding that valuations were based on available documentary evidence and witness testimony, that there was insufficient proof of beneficial ownership and of specific double-counting, that the correct remedy for delay in payment was an application for extension rather than overturning the order, and that the application for leave lacked a reasonable prospect of success so no stay should be granted and costs should follow the event.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    District Court Ordinance (Cap. 336) s63A(2)

    Leave to appeal will be granted only if the intended appeal has a reasonable prospect of success or there is some other reason in the interests of justice

  2. 02

    SMSE v KL [2009] 4 HKLRD 125

    A reasonable prospect of success means an arguable case with chances more than fanciful but not necessarily probable

  3. 03

    Moher v Moher (authoritative principle applied by court)

    A non-discloser should not obtain a better outcome than if they had complied with disclosure obligations

  4. 04

    Principles of disclosure and valuation applied by the trial judge

    Where documentary evidence or professional valuation is lacking the court may assess value on the limited evidence available; parties may seek specific discovery or professional valuations

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Leave to appeal refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success; the trial judge properly assessed assets on the available evidence, correctly found insufficient evidence of beneficial ownership and of specific double-counting, and there was no interest of justice reason to hear the appeal; consequently no stay and costs awarded to respondent.

Obiter and limits

  • The petitioner may apply for an extension of time to make the lump sum payment if necessary
  • If adding back sale proceeds causes double-counting the applicant must specify the exact amount to demonstrate the error
  • Costs shall follow the event and be taxed if not agreed

Court disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed; stay of execution refused; costs awarded against applicant

  • Leave to appeal refused
  • Application for stay of execution refused
  • Petitioner\'s amended summons dated 28 September 2024 re-filed 3 February 2025 dismissed
  • Costs of the application to be paid by the Petitioner to the Respondent, to be taxed if not agreed

Source and reliance status

Family Court · 3 March 2025

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Family Court

Judgment· 3 March 2025

[2025] HKFC 38

bjbj P]:]; FCMC14931/2014 [2025] HKFC 38

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES NO. 14931 OF 2014 ----------------------------

BETWEEN HYF Petitioner and CSL Respondent ---------------------------- Coram: His Honour Judge S. Lo in Chambers (Not Open to Public) Date of Petitioner s submissions: 27 September 2024 Date of Respondent s submissions: 3 December 2024 Date of Decision: 3 March 2025 -----------------------

DECISION ( Leave to Appeal ) ----------------------- This is the application taken out by the Petitioner ( ) for leave to appeal against the Judgment handed down by me on 30 August 2024 ( Judgment ) and stay of execution pending appeal. Corrigendum was subsequently issued on 22 November 2024. In so far as applicable, I would use the same abbreviations as that in the Judgment . Legal principles regarding leave to appeal Section 63A(2) of the District Court Ordinance (Cap. 336) provides that leave to appeal shall not be granted unless the intended appeal has a reasonable prospect of success or that there is some other reason in the interests of justice that the appeal should be heard. The relevant test of whether an appeal has a reasonable prospect of success is whether the applicant for leave can show that he has an arguable case with reasonable chances of success on appeal. A reasonable prospect of success therefore means an appeal with prospects that are more than fanciful but which do not need to be shown to be probable : SMSE v KL [2009] 4 HKLRD 125. Ground 1 W argued that I erred in my approach in assessing the values of H s assets, namely Shanghai Colom, RMB 30 million Compensation, the HK Companies owned by H, the Theme Park etc. Before coming to the conclusion as to the values of H s various assets, I did carefully examine the documentary evidence such as the Shanghai

Colom s ledgers etc, and consider the testimonies of the witnesses. I also kept reminding myself of the principle in Moher v Moher to ensure that the non-discloser does not obtain a better outcome than that which would have been ordered if they had complied with their disclosure obligations in the Judgment. Even though the parties have the duty to make full and frank disclosure of their assets, it will not prevent the opposite side to take out specific discovery application against the other and/or request for professional valuation of a particular asset. In my view, if there are insufficient documentary evidence or lack of professional valuation, the best that the court could do is to assess the value based on the limited evidence before the court. That is what I did in the Judgment. This ground has no merit. Ground 2 W submitted that I was plainly wrong in concluding that there was insufficient evidence to establish that H was the beneficial owner of Dong Fang Ju Hotel, and that I erred in finding that W had secreted sales proceeds of the Ming Yue Road Property. Before coming to such a conclusion and finding, I did thoroughly examine the documentary evidence such as the declaration dated 12 January 2005, bank records etc, and consider the testimonies of the witnesses. If it is the W s case that H had a beneficial interest in Dong Fang Ju Hotel, but not that he was a

registered shareholder or owner, she has to join the relevant party and request a determination of beneficial ownership by the court as a preliminary issue. Nonetheless, W failed to do so. If the adding back of the sale proceeds on top of W s cash holding and bank account balances resulted in double-counting, W has failed to show the exact amount of the alleged double-counting in her submission. Again, this ground has no merit. Ground 3 W argued that I erred in ordering that W do make the lump sum payment within 28 days from the issue of the Decree Absolute since the bulk of her assets are real properties and cannot be realised within a short period of time. I consider that she may apply for an extension of time to make such payment, if necessary. Conclusion To conclude, W has failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospect of success in her intended appeal and there is no other reason in the interests of justice why the appeal should be heard. Her application for leave to appeal should be dismissed. Since leave to appeal is refused, I see no good reason to grant stay of execution pending appeal. W s amended summons dated 28 September 2024 and re-filed on 3 February 2025 be dismissed. Regarding the question of costs, costs shall no doubt follow event. H has not lodged his statement of costs. I thus order that costs of this application be paid by W to H, to be taxed if not agreed. ( Simon Lo ) District Judge Ms Bonnie Y.K. Cheng and Mr Jonathan Fung instructed by Ho & Ip for the Petitioner Mr Enzo Chow and Ms Esther Leung instructed by Chong & Partners LLP for the Respondent [2024] HKFC 162 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT -

PAGE

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T U V uhuhXIu= h6b: h b; h b; h b; gd b; gdkF gdkF gdkF gdkF |m_TF_ h68D gdVo] gdgB hVo] hVo] gdkF g_UgM `\RLRL\L` &`#$ mH <sH <P mH <sH <@ mH <sH <Z [Content_Types].xml _rels/.rels theme/theme/themeManager.xml K Y, sQ}# theme/theme/theme1.xml $O}) Xp90 +PHI| PP yu 9xu5 fs+W VF7H q=. 8}d- qyI@ j!Q_ jyV` |PZ+ T ""p < 4V O&x$ A8>v ;EUC n 8r *~P(5 .}x E /,EE\} theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.rels 5 6?$Q K(M&$R(.1 [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK theme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?> <a:clrMap xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" bg1="lt1" tx1="dk1" bg2="lt2" tx2="dk2" accent1="accent1" accent2="accent2" accent3="accent3" accent4="accent4" accent5="accent5" accent6="accent6" hlink="hlink" folHlink="folHlink"/>Y Bm},D DI/l R>*4

NLSD Bm}, <P$Z N;T= 34$@b Normal.dotm Windows User Microsoft Office Word Title Y<]; P]:]; P]:]; <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?><b:Sources xmlns:b="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" xmlns="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" SelectedStyle="\APASixthEditionOfficeOnline.xsl" StyleName="APA" Version="6"></b:Sources> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?> <ds:datastoreItem ds:itemID="{E095D33A-9AD9-4605-8FFA-B1D90484D0A4}" xmlns:ds="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/customXml"><ds:schemaRefs><ds:schemaRef ds:uri="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography"/></ds:schemaRefs></ds:datastoreItem> Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

SMSE v KL [2009] 4 HKLRD 125

Case cited

Moher v Moher

Case cited

[2025] HKFC 38 (District Court, Simon Lo)

Case cited

District Court Ordinance (Cap. 336) s63A(2)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.