Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Asset valuation

  • 25 Jul 2025

    HKSAR v. LAM CHUNG YIU CHARLES

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 3294
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCC98/2023

    The court rejected the defendant's arguments that the civil judgment debt constituted an 'obligation having priority' and that it could refuse to make a confiscation order to avoid double recovery. The defendant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the AMBR was nil or significantly lower; the court accepted the prosecution's asset identification and expert watch valuation (subject to excluding one sold item and one illegible tag) and found AMBR (net of four returned watches if forfeited separately) was HK$12,200,461.79, which is less than the VoP (USD$1,875,030.64); therefore…

  • 30 Apr 2024

    LCC v. LTLA

    Citation
    [2024] HKCA 406
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV281/2022

    The Court allowed the appeal in part: the judge’s notional add‑back of HKD96,590,486 for gambling losses was set aside because W failed to prove by clear evidence that H’s conduct amounted to wanton or reckless dissipation causatively depleting the matrimonial pot; accordingly the matrimonial pool was recalculated and the lump sum payable by H was reduced to HKD266,264,000 with a revised payment timetable and specified costs orders.

  • 18 Oct 2022

    KCMA v. ABC AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2022] HKCFI 3164
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMC1/2019

    The court found H's manner of disclosure and litigation conduct to be highly unreasonable and, on that basis, varied the Costs Order Nisi so that the costs ordered to be paid by H to W and the Official Solicitor (insofar as ordered against H) are on an indemnity basis; however W was ordered to pay H's costs of and incidental to the FDR from 12 October 2020 (party and party, certificate for one counsel) because W unreasonably delayed instructing experts and failed to comply with FDR directions; OS's costs of and incidental to the FDR are to be paid and indemnified by W; other specified costs (…

  • 11 Nov 2021

    庾 對 黃

    Citation
    [2021] HKFC 230
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC1517/2017

    Permission to appeal was refused because the applicant's grounds had no reasonable prospect of success: the factual analysis of aggregated assets showed at most a limited claim (estimated at HKD200,000) and the parties reached a negotiated settlement of HKD100,000 which the court endorsed; procedural complaints did not establish a miscarriage of justice warranting leave.

  • 1 Mar 2021

    BCJ v. RCS

    Citation
    [2021] HKFC 39
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC14020/2017

    Balance favoured maintaining the injunction because the valuation dispute over the wife's 50% share in SLAC meant realisation of the US properties risked prejudicing the ancillary relief claim; the husband was capable of conducting the proceedings in person and there was no sufficient justification to permit sale to fund litigation, so the summons to discharge the injunction was dismissed and costs were ordered against him.

  • 17 Mar 2020

    林 對 莊

    Citation
    [2020] HKFC 38
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC4891/2015

    Applying Cap.192 s.7 considerations the court identified four matrimonial assets (Hung Hom flat, Fujian property, Mercedes, jewellery), assessed values (net matrimonial pool HKD18,900,000 after mortgage), found parties’ disclosures unreliable and the marriage short. The court departed from equal sharing and awarded 65% to husband and 35% to wife, deducted HKD2,500,000 from wife's entitlement for jewellery she took/sold, ordered husband to pay a lump sum HKD4,115,000 as clean-break ancillary relief and adjusted pendente lite maintenance to HKD5,000/month backdated to Aug 4, 2014 with arrears r…

  • 25 Nov 2019

    敖 對 湯

    Citation
    [2019] HKFC 304
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC7224/2016

    The judge accepted the respondent had a diagnosed depressive illness that had reduced her short‑term earning capacity and that a limited short‑term monetary award would meet her needs; parties would retain their own assets; accordingly a lump sum payment of HKD30,666.73 by the petitioner within one month was necessary and proportionate to discharge the respondent's immediate debt and to resolve ancillary relief.

  • 30 Sept 2019

    吳 對 陳

    Citation
    [2019] HKFC 256
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC1192/2016

    Having adopted the valuation evidence for the former matrimonial home (HK$18,508,000), accepted the wife's disclosed bank/investment evidence (rounded to HK$8,000,000) and imputed dissipation of HK$700,000 for lavish purchases, the court determined matrimonial assets at HK$27,446,000, deducted the wife's debt to her daughter (HK$58,500) to reach distributable HK$27,387,500, applied the equal sharing principle yielding HK$13,693,750 each, credited the wife's existing assets (HK$28,000) and awarded a lump-sum maintenance payment by the husband to the wife of HK$13,666,000 payable within 30 days…

  • 30 Aug 2017

    LKW v. KY

    Citation
    LKW v. KY
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV182/2015

    The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's credibility findings and held he was entitled to draw adverse inferences from the petitioner's failure to make full and frank disclosure; the delivery notes and associated evidence supported the inference that the petitioner beneficially owned the Properties and the judge was justified in assessing their value at about RMB2.6 million for purposes of ancillary relief; the appeal was therefore dismissed.

  • 24 Nov 2014

    YN also known as YN(A) v. NA

    Citation
    YN also known as YN(A) v. NA
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV236/2013

    The Court of Appeal dismissed the wife's appeal, holding the trial judge's broad factual findings and round figures for the asset pool were within discretion; the 70% allocation to the wife together with a lump sum and ten years' periodical payments appropriately satisfied need, sharing and compensation in context of the available assets; limited term periodical payments and the judge's valuations were not plainly wrong; the sealed order arithmetic required amendment to reflect the figures the trial judge used (implementation sum JPY71,303,000).