Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Asset division

Legal area

Court

26 May 2025

JTJ v. HGSH

Citation

[2025] HKFC 116
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC15905/2018

Applying the principles that costs normally follow the event but the court has a broad discretion in family cases, the judge found the Respondent to be the overall successful party, the Petitioner failed to show any of his five grounds justified varying the costs order nisi, and the Petitioner’s application to vary was dismissed; costs of the application were ordered against the Petitioner and the costs order nisi was made absolute.
26 May 2025

JTJ v. HGSH

Citation

[2025] HKFC 116
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC15810/2018

The applicant failed to establish any of the five grounds for varying the costs order nisi; the court applied the established principle that costs normally follow the event, found W to be the overall successful party on the ancillary reliefs, and declined to re-open or re-find factual matters already decided; accordingly H’s summons was dismissed, H ordered to pay W’s costs of the variation application and the costs order nisi was made absolute.
9 Aug 2024

WHK v. LCH

Citation

[2024] HKFC 147
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC10933/2022

After identifying and valuing the matrimonial assets and disputed items the Court applied the LKD v DD framework and found no good reason to depart from equal sharing; it rejected most allegations of wanton dissipation but found the Respondent had retained HK$280,000 from multiple unexplained cash withdrawals (re‑attributed to his cash savings), valued the Wife's 45% shareholding in EBL at HK$150,000 and the contested insurance policy at account value HK$865,744; ordering sale of the principal property and equal division of net proceeds, a lump sum payment by the Respondent of HK$2,330,103 wi…
22 May 2024

陳對陳

Citation

[2024] HKFC 94
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC113/2021

法院裁定女方仍以註冊業主身份持有前婚姻居所半份業權，拒絕其單方面主張以信託人名義代兒子持有的聲稱，故該物業及女方的權益屬可分配的婚姻資產。經評估家庭總資產為HK$2,217,527.59，依平均分割原則（無充分理由偏離），扣除男方已表明並非分配之個人資產後，判給男方一半的分配款項，裁定女方於絕對離婚令發出後28日內一次過支付男方HK$902,600；就女方未如實披露貸款去向，法院作出不利推斷並就訟費行使酌情權命令女方支付男方50%訟費（含大律師證書），男方自負之訟費按法律援助規例評定。
3 May 2024

鄺對邱

Citation

[2024] HKCA 402
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP367/2023

The applicant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success on appeal because the trial judge’s detailed factual findings and discretionary decision on asset division and ordering the sale of the Hung Shui Kiu property were supported by the evidence and not vitiated by any obvious or demonstrable error; accordingly permission to appeal and a stay of execution are refused and costs are ordered against the applicant.
17 Apr 2024

陳對王

Citation

[2024] HKFC 77
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC100/2020

Court found respondent deliberately breached the consent order and extravagantly dissipated HK$2,205,800 of the Shenzhen sale proceeds; that sum was notionally re‑attributed (added back) to the matrimonial pool; assets were then divided to achieve a broadly fair outcome by preserving the wife’s occupation of the First City property and capitalising part of the court‑held proceeds for child maintenance ($480,000) paid in six‑monthly instalments while transferring the Zhaoqing property to the husband and paying the husband a one‑off HK$100,000; respondent remains liable for his own debts and no…
28 Feb 2024

LYT v. CCS

Citation

[2024] HKFC 38
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC2050/2021

On the balance of probabilities the Hong Kong Property was procured pursuant to arrangements made during the marriage and given its timing and source of funds is a matrimonial asset; the petitioner proved the existence/value of the PRC properties and the transferred insurance policies are matrimonial assets; applying the sharing principle and considering needs (including petitioner’s mental health) a 50:50 division after accounting for petitioner’s own assets yields a lump sum award of HK$1,702,533 payable from sale proceeds of the Hong Kong Property.
20 Dec 2023

RE also known as ME v. POPM also known as P-M OPR

Citation

[2023] HKFC 255
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC1658/2020

Because the husband failed to provide full and frank financial disclosure, was repeatedly absent and the available evidence supported the petitioner's asset valuations, the court drew an adverse inference, accepted the petitioner's assessment of the matrimonial pot at HK$6,502,248, applied LKW v DD steps and departed from equal division to a 60:40 split in favour of the petitioner, awarding a lump sum of HK$3,901,349 and periodical payments of HK$15,000 per month backdated to April 2023 until the lump sum is paid, with costs to the petitioner.
24 Nov 2023

李對甘

Citation

[2023] HKFC 228
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC10730/2013

The court quantified the matrimonial asset pool (not less than HK$9,470,725.6), applied the LKW equal sharing presumption and found no sufficient reason to depart from 50/50. Because the respondent repeatedly failed to disclose financials and attend hearings, the court drew adverse inferences and exercised statutory powers to ensure implementation (including appointment of a solicitor to sign documents). Consequently the court ordered transfer of the Flower Market Road property to the applicant, sale of Haifu Garden with specified priority payments and allocations, monthly maintenance for the…
24 Aug 2023

吳對蕭

Citation

[2023] HKFC 160
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC7495/2011

Applying s.7 and LKW methodology the court found the parties' identifiable matrimonial assets to be modest (approx. HK$14,613,935), treated the Golden Coast sale proceeds as pre-allocated to the wife, applied the sharing principle but limited by parties' needs and available assets, and ordered that within three months after the absolute decree the wife transfer title of 永利8G to the husband and the husband concurrently transfer title of 永利9F to the wife, with each transferee responsible for any registered encumbrances and transfer costs; the court refused the husband's claim for transfer of a…