DJA v. OFI

DJA v. OFI

Section 17 application dismissed because applicant failed to prove husband transferred shares with the requisite intention to defeat ancillary relief and because even if set aside the transfer it was unlikely to change the financial outcome; the only material matrimonial asset identified was the UK property held by A Limited with a reasonable net value of GBP350,000, and a needs-based order awarding the wife a lump sum of GBP350,000 (to be paid by the husband by 6 March 2020) together with nominal periodical payments and discharge of prior interim maintenance and arrears was proportionate and just; costs awarded to the wife on an indemnity basis.

Citation
[2019] HKFC 234
Parties
Petitioner: DJA; Respondent: OFI
Court
Family Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 September 2019
Case Number
FCMC1342/2015
Procedural Posture
Matrimonial Causes / Ancillary Relief / Final Ancillary Relief Hearing Including Section 17 and Rule 56 Applications
Outcome
Section 17 application dismissed; Respondent's Rule 56B application discharged; lump sum award to Respondent GBP350,000 payable by Petitioner by 6 March 2020; nominal periodical maintenance HK$1 per annum; prior interim maintenance order and outstanding maintenance discharged; ancillary relief claims otherwise...
Legal Topics
Section 17 MPPO (avoidance of Dispositions), Ancillary Relief (needs Vs Sharing), Disclosure and Adverse Inferences, Third Party Financial Support, Rule 56 Post Divorce Financial Consideration
Source Language
EN
Family Law Matrimonial Property Maintenance Civil Procedure Cross Border Enforcement Section 17 MPPO (avoidance of Dispositions) Ancillary Relief (needs Vs Sharing) Disclosure and Adverse Inferences +2 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DJA

Petitioner

OFI

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Matrimonial Causes / Ancillary Relief / Final Ancillary Relief Hearing Including Section 17 and Rule 56 Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the transfer of 3,333 shares should be set aside under s.17 MPPO as made with intent to defeat financial claims
  2. 2 Identification and valuation of matrimonial assets (A Limited / Knokke property)
  3. 3 Whether husband made full and frank disclosure and whether adverse inferences should be drawn

Ratio Decidendi

Section 17 application dismissed because applicant failed to prove husband transferred shares with the requisite intention to defeat ancillary relief and because even if set aside the transfer it was unlikely to change the financial outcome; the only material matrimonial asset identified was the UK property held by A Limited with a reasonable net value of GBP350,000, and a needs-based order awarding the wife a lump sum of GBP350,000 (to be paid by the husband by 6 March 2020) together with nominal periodical payments and discharge of prior interim maintenance and arrears was proportionate and just; costs awarded to the wife on an indemnity basis.

Court Disposition

Section 17 application dismissed; Respondent's Rule 56B application discharged; lump sum award to Respondent GBP350,000 payable by Petitioner by 6 March 2020; nominal periodical maintenance HK$1 per annum; prior interim maintenance order and outstanding maintenance discharged; ancillary relief claims otherwise...

Orders

  • Paragraph 2 of Respondent's Notice of Application dated 8 September 2017 dismissed
  • Respondent's Form 8A Notice of Application under Rule 56B discharged